Recensio synoptica annotationis sacrae : being a critical digest and synoptical arrangement of the most important annotations on the New Testament, exegetical, philological, and doctrinal : collected from commentators both ancient and modern..

aLeyy MDS My reba ay

Scukitapate aeguaubnmegmbesutsrant anes et SEN sees Naar tap stata

ΒΝ en

ΠΣ

ae Sevan

LIBRARY OF PRINCETON

DEC 1 0 2007

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

le Ν ls “
J
>
Γ νγ δι
a
é
eS
ab
s =

ΠΥ ἢν.
eRe

ae δι
q "

Recensto Spnoptica
ANNOTATIONIS SACRA.

IN TWO PARTS.

PAR? sit.

LIBRARY OF PRINCETON
DEC 10 2007

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

᾿ 4 ee

φ ΕΑ
. A , 4 ~
* 8
r 5

; -
‘
τ ἘΝ 7 -
᾿ ΄ 4 ‘
i
᾿
; i
+ A ΄ ς
-
᾿

€
» ' J ;
r Ἂν ,

7 ? ff.

ἡ. ᾿-

- ε΄

Ἂν"

J. Β. NICHOLS, 25, PARLIAMENT-STREET.

- «
« as

| ἔφ ὲ Ξι

3λετεπσίο Spnoptica
ANNOTATIONIS SACRE;

BEING A

CRITICAL DIGEST

SYNOPTICAL ARRANGEMENT

OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

ANNOTATIONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT,
EXEGETICAL, PHILOLOGICAL, AND DOCTRINAL:

CAREFULL% COLLECTED AND CONDENSED, FROM THE BEST COMMENTATORS,
BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN,

AND SO DIGESTED AS TO FORM ONE CONSISTENT BODY OF ANNOTATION,
In which

€ach Portion is spstematical(y attributed to its respective Author,

AND THE FOREIGN MATTER TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH 3

The whole accompanied with

A COPIOUS BODY OF ORIGINAL ANNOTATIONS.

χ᾽

By Tue Rev. 5. T. BLOOMFIELD, M.A.

OF SIDNEY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, VICAR OF BISBROOKE IN RUTLAND, AND RESIDENT
CURATE OF TUGBY, LEICESTERSHIRE.

Οὐ σοφισταὶ ἥκομεν, οὐδὲ ἀπιστεῖν ἕτοιμοι, θεαταὶ de μόνον τῶν
γεγραμμένων, ἐξετάξομεν τὴν Τραφήν.
Philostr. Jun. Icon, 1. 24.
Ὅπου οὐκ ἔστι πίστις, ἅπαντα vocel, Kal οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ μάχαι τίκτονται
λόγων, τοῦ πιθανοτέρου τὸν ἕτερον ἀνατρέπειν δοκοῦντος: Ἣ πίστις
ἠφθαλμό 2 oy ” > ἊΝ \ ὑδὲ ΓΜ ΕΣ ἰλλὸὲ ,
ὀφθαλμός ἐστιν 6 μὴ ἔχων ὀφθαλμοὺς οὐδὲν εὑρίσκει, ἀλλὰ μόνον
Φητεῖ. Theophylact, from Chrysostom.

VOES VL.

LONDON:
c. AND J. RIVINGTON, |

62, ST PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD; AND 3, WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL.

MDCCCXXVIII.

HOA a IO LOY

ὐφορμσζαν “anion
ee aT ΑἹ ἢ οὐ ΥῪ
ke . ἢ : mgt in NAG “Suh γι ΝΥ Νὴ Tale i νν, τὰ ᾿ ‘S aa us

eT Pi ABS BO. iCute Lanai.

VRaneort! ΠΝ Gk uA wows! nike ΔΑ ΑΘ τι

'-

ARE ois" ae σὰς ¥ Sane ΚΝ ΡΥ τ ΡΝ > Ciao

‘ Ἐν

Meee ΔΙ ΔΛ 1 ες eas Ἐπ ον αὐ ΟΝ SST Ss ‘

‘

j ᾽. »-
is i ‘ hy roe

νὰ ἡ ΤΩΝ rp τ δον et

rf ἃ Pare aA | } : \ aoe wie ”
Ans Ho aod PARAMS ee RH Ox eR ἀΛΎΦΗΡΗα oust

apc eer ἡ ἊΝ oh ἐκ τε» ὦ a " Bei by to) $y otf ῥῶ ν

ἊΣ

fea a ea Gaye pen Ty Hh.

i

- ΠῚ

a abot alse ἦν, fe Abt ᾿ ᾿

δ ν arts sini a ane e d ἙΝ
baie Sie gr ys <a: eer ᾿
Sra ΡΩΝ dina wa Fag sy: ἢ Yee 1st Bory rah:

Mer ie. i Nes att ὯΝ is
Pe i,

4 ἢ ΛΩΝ ae Aig } Ma
ἢ ΣΝ ἀφ 3) a, ΤᾺ :
Δ ἢ Ἶ δ! Ἔδοιν ’ dy ἃ, ΚΣ or

ied EE seth nied ΤΑΝ ὧν ΗΝ pik ie wg Pacts

pate astick bah a via Y thag Sis

Ἐν,

ee
ἤν
h vag i, ib

di, δὴ. ks ΤΣ

ee ee
; τ in ὁ δον

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

CHAP. I.

This Epistle, according to the custom of St. Paul,
begins with a salutation, ver. 12., then thanks to God
for the progress of the church in Christianity, ver.
3—8., and prayers to Him to preserve and confirm it in
the same, ver. 9. seqq. (Heinrichs.) ‘The com-
mencement of this Epistle is nearly the same as that
of the one to the Ephesians, where see the note.

Verse 1. 6 ἁδελφὸς, “ our brother,” i. e. brother
minister. See the note on Phil. 4, 21.

2. Κολοσσαῖς. Several antient MSS. read ΚΚολασ-
cais, which is probably the true reading, But such
points are of difficult decision. Thus, in Thucyd.,
instead of the common reading Μιτυλήνη and Συρα-
κουσίοι and Μυτιλήνη, the best MSS., coins, and in-
scriptions, read Συρακοσίοι and Μυτιλήνη.

8. εὐχαριστοῦμιεν----προσευχόμιενοι. ‘The πάντοτε may
be joined either with εὐχαριστοῦμεν (as it is done by
the recent Commentators), or with προσευχόμενοι, as

{ it is done by the antient and earlier moderns. The

~ former construction is confirmed by 1 Cor. 1, 11.

1 Thess. 1, 2. 2 Thess. 1,3. Yet the latter, which

is supported by Rom. 1, 10., is the more natural.

Πάντοτε may, however, be said to belong to both
words.

4. ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν vucv—ayious. Heinrichs
explains πίστις accessio ad Christum. And by ἀγάπη
he understands palmaria virtus, for omnis virtutis
Christiane ambitus. But this is too artificial. It is
better to interpret the words in their plain and na-

VOL. VIII. B

4 ΠΎΛΑΣ
ΧΑ ed

4 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

tural acceptation ; the former as denoting the pro-
fession of the Christian religion: the latter, kindness
and charity towards the poor brethren, whether
townsmen or strangers. But the full sense of mor.
and ἀκούσαντες will depend upon the determination of
the question whether the Church at Colosse had
been founded by St. Paul or not: a point rather
doubtful; since the passages adduced admit of some
latitude of interpretation. Yet, upon the whole, the
evidence for the latter opinion seems the stronger.
The church was probably founded by Epaphras. So
the antients and many moderns.

ὃ. διὰ τὴν eprida τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς,
The Apostle now proceeds to accumulate period on
period; whence in this chapter we find the con-
struction not a little embarrassed, and, by frequent
additions, the context much protracted ; just as in
the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Heinr.)

The words seem connected with the εὐχαριστοῦμεν,
&c. at ver. 3.; though some refer them to those
immediately preceding, with this sense: ““ because
of the felicity which ye know is thereby laid up for
you in heaven.” Of both the constructions mention
is made by the antients.

By ἐλπ. is meant not so much the hope itself as
the thing hoped for; a frequent sense. See the
examples of Kypke and Loesn. or Schleus. Lex. in v.
Rosenm. observes that this ἐλπ.. is represented under
the image of a βραβεῖόν, or ἄθλος, which πρόκειται,
ἀπόκειται. See at Hebr. 6,8. And so Joseph. Ant.
8, 12, 3. and Philo 834. p. and often. But here the
term is aroxez, in which there cannot be an agonis-
tical allusion; but rather one to. money or rich
goods laid up in a royal treasury, and to be distri-
buted to the deserving. ‘Thus Heinr. cites Plut.
1, 521. τοῖς ἐν βεβαιωκόσιν ἀπόκειται γέρας ἐν ἅδου.
The chief intent of the metaphor is to represent the
felicity hoped for as sure and certain, like a sum

* So also good offices were metaphorically said to be laid up,
i. 6. the reward of them; as in Thucyd. 1, 129. κεῖται σοι εὐεργεσία.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 3

deposited i in a royal treadury, or that of some temple
inviolable. So Theophyl. : μὴ οὖν ἀμφιβάλλετε περὶ
τὴς ἐλπίδος" ἐν ἀσφαλεῖ γὰρ ἀποκεῖται.

5. ἣν προηκούσατε. By the προ, Commentators, both
antient and modern, are agreed, is signified for-
merly, at the beginning, namely, of their conversion.
This implies that some considerable time had since
elapsed. The ἠκούσατε has reference to catachetical
and oralinstruction. ᾿Αληθείας, Rosenm. would take
as put for the cognate adjective. But I prefer, with
Heinr., to regard λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας as a periphrasis
for the Christian religion (as in 2 Cor. 6,7. and
Eph. 1, 13.) ; ἢ and τοῦ alegre for sider μῶν

6. τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμάς--- ἀληθείᾳ. On the sense of
παρόντος the Commentators are not agreed, The
antients took it for és πάρεστι, κρατεῖ, ἐνεργεῖ. Thus
εἰς bas will be for ἐν ὑμῖν. And so several moderns.
But this seems very harsh. It appears preferable,
with Grot. and most recent Commentators, to take
παρόντος in that sense which, especially when followed
by εἰς, the word often has in the Classical writers.
Raphel adduces some examples from Polyb. (to
which several from Thucyd. might be added.) And
so 2 Cor. 2, 11. 11, 8. 13,2 & 10. Gal. 4,18 & 20.
Though sometimes it is uncertain whether the sense
to be, or to go, is preferable. Here come is, by a
common idiom, for brought, preached.

Καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, “as has been the
case with all the world.” MHeinr. considers this as
put for, “not the Jews only, but all nations.” This
method, however, though meant to avoid a difficulty
in τῷ κοσμιῷ, taken in the ordinary way, is too harsh.
Nor is it necessary. The best Commentators are
agreed that it may be regarded as a popular hyper-
bole (see Rom. 1, 8.) ; though it is probable that
there were few countries of the civilized world into
which the Gospel had not been, by this time, intro-
duced; and for savages it was not intended, since
civilization must necessar ily precede evangelization.

Καὶ ἐστι καρποφορούμιενον. All the Commentators

ΒΩ

4 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1.

seem agreed that ἐστι καρποφορούμιενον is for καρποφορεῖ.
But why, then (it may be asked) did not the Apostle
so write? Because, I apprehend, he meant some-
thing more. For ts bearing somewhat differs from
bears. So ofa tree, when its fruit is in the bud, we
may say καρποφορών ἐστι, OF καρποφορούμενος, but after-
wards καρποφορεῖ : and I apprehend that the Apostle
meant thus to represent a state of the Gospel in some
of the many countries of the world into which it had
been introduced. By the fruit is meant, by ἃ com-
mon metaphor (as Matt. 13, 23. Mark 4, 20. Luke
8,15. and Rom. 7, 4.) the Saat of reforming and
blessing men here, and by the production of good
works, as the fruits of faith, making them meet to
be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light
hereafter. ‘This metaphorical sense of κάρπος is rare
in the Classical writers, and the philological Com-
mentators adduce no example. The following may
therefore be acceptable. Plut. Arat. 10. ἀπεργάϑετε
τὴν ἀρεπὴν, ὥσπερ καρπὸν αὐτοφυὴ καὶ ἀγεώργητον.

After καρποφορούμενον several MSS. have καὶ αὐξα-
νόμιενον, Which is supported by almost all the Versions,
and some Iathers and Greek Commentators, and has
been approved by most Critics, and admitted into
the text by Griesbach ; but, I think, on insufficient
grounds. The reason assigned for its omission,
namely, homoioteleuton, is not satisfactory : for how
could such an accidental error have extended itself
to so many MSS.? It is far more probable, as is
the opinion of Wolf, Wets., and Matthei (on the
authority of Chrys.), that it was introduced from
ver. 10.

Καθὼς καὶ ὑμῖν, “as it has also done among you.”
"AQ’ ἧς ἡμέρας---ἀληθείᾳ. The Commentators are not
agreed to what to refer the ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, whether to
ἐπέγνωσε, taking ἐν ἀληθείᾳ for ἀληθώς (as Joh. 4, 24.),
or to χάριν, by hendiadis, for χάριν ἀληθὴ. The
former method is far preferable. Other less pro-
bable constructions are detailed by Rosenm. and
Heinr. Theophyl. well explains thus: οὐκ ἐν ἀπάτῃ

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 9)

καὶ λόγοις εἰκαίοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, τουτέστι, σημείοις
καὶ ἔργοις παραδόξοις.

7: 8. καθὼς καὶ ἐμιάθετε. Heinr. rightly refers κα-
bars to ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, for ἀληθὼς. Συνδούλ., fellow mini-
ster. Ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, “for your advantage ;” a frequent
signification of ὑπὲρ. Compare 2 Cor. 4,5. ᾿Αγάπη
must be interpreted as at ver. 4., where see the
note. ᾿Εν πνεύματι is by some, as Menoch. Beza,
and Whitby, interpreted, ‘‘ wrought in you by
the spirit.” But this seems not to be the sense
here; especially as there is no article. I prefer the
interpretation of Grot. and most modern Commen-
tators (confirmed also by the antients), who take it
to signify “spiritual, sincere, and as becometh the
Gospel.” ‘The antients, and some moderns, regard
the love in question as that borne by the Colossians
towards Paul. But that, if (as it seems) they had
not yet seen him, is rather improbable. It is, be-
sides, far more natural to take it. of love towards each
other, as supra ver. 4.

9. The Apostle now (according to his usual cus-
tom), to the rendering of thanks adds prayers for
the furtherance of the Colossians in Christianity.
Before all things he prays that they may have a
progressively better and truer knowledge of this
saving doctrine, since on that may be laid the super-
structure of true Christian virtue. Now this admo-
nition was necessary, on account of the Judaizing
and fanatical teachers, who endeavoured to persuade
the Colossians that the doctrine of Christ was insuf-
ficient to bless men. (Heinr.)

9. ἵνα πληρωθῆτε τὴν. ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ,
‘*that ye may be filled with divine knowledge.” At
ἐπίγνωσιν must be understood κατὰ. Of αὐτοῦ the
antecedent is Θεοῦ at ver. 6. The θελ. is explained
by Rosenm. of the divine precepts; and thus ἐπιγν.
τοῦ θελήματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, will be, ““a knowledge of
what God would have us know, believe, and do.”
But I prefer, with Heinr., to understand it of the
divine plans for the salvation of men by Christ. So
Theophyl. well explains: θέλημα γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ

6 COLOSSIANS, CHAP, I.

εὐδοκία, τὸ τὸν. Υἱὸν δοθῆναι ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, οὐχὶ τοὺς ἀγγέ-
λους. He also observes, that the wang. implies that
that knowledge was yet incomplete and imperfect.
On the sense of the rest of the verse see the notes
on Ephes. 1, 8. and Doddr. in loc. .

10. περιπατῆσαι ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Kupiov εἰς πᾶσαν
ἀρεσκείαν. At περιπατ. must be understood εἰς τὸ.
The preposition here, as often, indicates the end and
tendency. Fora life and conduct worthy of Christ
and his ,religion was the fruit to be expected from a
right knowledge. At εἰς πᾶσαν ἀρεσκείαν subaud τοῦ
Θεοῦ, from the next clause. The term ἀρεσκεία sig-
nifies the study of pleasing others, and is therefore
capable both of a good, anda bad sense. In the
Classical writers it is almost always used in the datéer:
but examples of the former are found; as Polyb.
(cited by Raphel) ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀρεσκεία" and,
what is more to the purpose, Philo 33 c. (cited by
Loesner) where it is said of Adam: εἰς ἀρεσκείαν τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ βασίλεως.

The words following suggest how this ἀρεσκεία
may be accomplished, namely, 1st, by perseverance
in rendering the fruit of good works; @dly, by pa-
tience and constancy in temptation and adversity.
On καρποΦοροῦντες, see the note supra ver. 6. ‘There
is an enallage for καρποφοροῦντας ; though some refer
all the nominatives to πληρωθῆτε. ‘The ἐν παντὶ
ἀγαθῷ καρποφοροῦντες, evidently refers to good works;
the αὐξανόμενοι εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, to that cor-
rect knowledge of God’s will by which alone good
works can be produced. ‘The εἰς is rendered by Storr.
quod attinet ad. But this is too feeble a sense: and
I remember no example of εἰς after αὐξ. in this sense.
Heinr. renders it suitably to, which makes a good
sense, but not, I think, that which the Apostle in-
tended. Besides, it would require κατὰ, The in-
terpretation is, however, supported by Theophyl. : νῦν
αὖθις ἀπαιτεῖ αὐξάνειν ἐν τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἔργοις, εἰς τὸ ἅμα
καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαθοῖς ἔργοις, εἰς τὸ ἅμα καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἐπι-
γινώσκειν" ἑκάτερον γὰρ ἑκατέρου συστατικόν. After all,

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 7

I see no reason to desert the common interpretation,
by which αὐξ. εἰς is taken as synonymous with αὐξ. ἐν,
which is found in some MSS., or av§. by itself; which
is found in‘many others, and is received by Griesb.
(and so 2 Pet. 3, 18.); but (I think) on insufficient
grounds. It savours of a gloss, and the common
reading is sufficiently defended both by its greater
difficulty, and by a similar construction in the Twin
Epistle (Eph. 4, 15.) αὐξήσωμεν εἰς αὐτὸν (1. 6.
Christ), where see the note. When the nature of
the term αὐξάνειν is considered, such a construction
will not seem strange. The Apostle has placed the
two particulars together, the increase of knowledge
and that of virtue, well knowing that they always
tend to mutually produce each other.

11. ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμιει δυναμούμιενοι κατὰ τὸ κράτος τῆς
δόξης αὐτοῦ, for ἐνδυναμούμενοι. πάσῃ δυνάμει. ‘This
very energetic expression ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει duvapoupevor
k.T.k. 0. (where τὴς δόξης is for the cognate adjective)
must denote those powerful and extraordinary aids
of the holy spirit then vouchsafed to faithful Chris-
tians; though the ordinary influences of the same
blessed spirit are given to all of every succeeding
age to profit withal. j

The words εἰς πᾶσαν ὑπομονὴν καὶ μακροθυμίαν μετὰ
χαρᾶς, show the end and purpose of such extraordi-
nary aids, namely, that they might bear every sort
of temptation and persecution with patience, nay,
even alacrity. For such is the sense of this con-
densed, and therefore obscure, clause. Μακροθυμία
must here denote, not (as the antients say) a slowness
to anger, but, as appears from the following words
μετὰ χαρᾶς (which stand in the place of a cognate
adjective), patience of endurance.

12—14. These verses close (like an epilogus,) what
he had thus far said; q. ἃ. “ And if in this manner
- you perceive the power of the Christian doctrine, and
show it in good works, you will not doubt whether
that doctrine points the the and right way to sal-
vation, but, persuaded that to it you owe all your

8 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I

happiness, you will assuredly render thanks to God,
for having admitted you, though Gentiles, into the
Christian society. (Heinr.)

12. edyoapiorouvres—ev τῷ φωτί, “ And that we may
return thanks to the Father, who, by this knowledge,
hath fitted you to be partakers of the inheritance of
the saints,” &c. Such is the general sense of the
passage, which, however, from brevity of expression,
and idiotical phraseology, i is somewhat obscure.

12. τῷ ἱκανώσαντι. At this word both the antient
and the modern Critics have stumbled. Hence the
reading καλέσαντι, which was as much a conjecture
as that of Bentley, καινώσαντι ; and both equally un-
necessary. The best Commentators, antient and mo-
dern, are agreed, that the term ix. is here to be taken
in a sense, somewhat rare indeed, but of which the
nature of the word is very susceptible, namely, meet,

fit. So Theophyl. explains: ἐπιτηδείους. Schleus.
defines the word thus: sufficientem reddo, idoneum,
aptum facio, facultatem alicujus rei efficiende lar-
gior. And he adduces as examples of this sense, 2
Cor. 8, 6. ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμιᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης.

Eis τὴν μερίδα coming after ἱκανώσ., is a locutio
pregnans, signifying « fit for (a participation in) the
portion of the inheritance,” &c. | Heinr. observes,
that ἅγιος, answering to the Hebr. wp, was the
sublimior Christianorum appellatio, as it had been
that of the Jews. The figure (he adds) here adopted
(which is similar to one in Acts 20, 32. 26, 18. and
Eph. 1,18.) is that of a state whose citizens have
assigned to each of them a pépis, portion, or posses-
sion 1 (see Gen. 14, 24.); and all these are supposed
to be assigned by dot, κλήρῳ. So that μέρις κλήρου is
for ““ an allotted portion.” ‘The above interpretation
is confirmed by Theophyl., who explains thus: τῷ
μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων κατατάξαντι' καὶ οὐχ οὕτως ἁπλώς,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τών αὐτῶν ἀπολαύσαι παρεσχηκότι" ὃ διὰ τῆς
μερίδος δηλοῖ" ᾿Εστὶ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει καταταγῆς
ναι, οὐ μὴν τὴν αὐτὴν μερίδι. ἔχειν' καὶ πάλιν, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ
κλήρῳ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν μερίδα" οἷον, ἐν τῷ

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 9

αὐτῷ κλήρῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάντες ἐσμὲν, ἀλλὰ ἄλλος
ἄλλην ἔχειν μερίδα. ᾿Ενταῦθα δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κλήρου
ἠξίωσε, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς μερίδος.

The ἐν τῷ φωτὶ is by some taken for διὰ τοῦ φῶτος.
(See Rosenm.) But the common interpretation in
light, seems preferable. Φώς is, by a common image,
put for light, knowledge. Thus Christians are said
to be sons of light, πεφωτισμένοι. And the Deity is
metaphorically represented as dwelling in light.
Theophyl. explains φωτὶ by γνώσει: and he thinks it
refers to both the present and the future world: for
now God hath enlightened us by a revelation of
divine mysteries; and in the future word he will im-
part it far more clearly. By us is meant, us Chris-
tians, whether Jews or Gentiles.

13. ὃς ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους,
“who hath liberated us from the power of darkness,”
i, e. the dominion of ignorance, sin, and Satan. In
this sense ἐξουσία is used in Rom. 13, 1. and else-
where. The image in σκότους was evidently sug-
gested by that in the preceding verse. It is fre-
quently used to designate the state of the Gentiles
before their conversion to Christianity ; as 1 Pet. 2,
9. Acts 26,18. The ἐξουσίας and ἐῤῥύσατο suggest
the harshness of the tyranny under which they had
groaned; and it is well observed by Wets. and
Heinr., that under the ἐξουσίας is couched a notion
of despotism, or tyranny. ‘The words φώς and σκότος
carry with them an adjunct notion of happiness and
misery, especially with reference to a future world.

13. μετέστησεν. Heinr. remarks on the aptness of
the term; since it is not only used of the transferring
of persons from one habitation to another, and of
transplanting any by colonization, but also of chang-
ing a form of government; as from oligarchy to de-
mocracy. So here those who had been under the
despotism of ignorance and Satan, are represented as
being transferred to the kingdom of knowledge, vir-
tue, and Christ, in which they have each their
allotted portion.” Τῆς ἀγάπης is plainly for ἀγαπη-
μένου.

10 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1,

14. ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐ-
τοῦ, These words have been explained at Eph. 1, 7.

There are few passages on which the opinions of Commentators
are more divided. The antients almost universally and the early
moderns taking the terms of the passage in their literal sense, inter-
pret it of the natural creation of all things by Christ ; and hence de-
duce a strong argument for the divinity of Christ. On the other
hand the Jater Commentators, (including Grot. and Whitby, and
especially the recent ones,) objecting that the above interpretation
is not agreeable to the context, take the passage to refer to the
new and spiritual creation by Jesus Christ; which, they maintain,
is quite correspondent to the context and the phraseology of many
parallel passages, as Eph. 1, 10 and 21. 2, 10 and 15. 3, 9 and 10,
4, 22—24. Col. 3, 10 and 11. Rom. 3, 11 seqq. James 1, 18. 2 Cor.
5,17. They particularly dwell on the similarity of style and sub-
ject matter in this and the twin Epistle (to the Ephesians), from _
which (3, 10.) it appears that by the revelation of the plan of re-
demption in the Gospel the angelic creation became enlightened as
well as subject to Christ. This interpretation has been supported by
all the acuteness and erudition which the recent Foreign School
could bestow upon it, especially by Ernesti, Justinus, Grulich, Noes-
selt, and Heinr., which Jast mentioned Commentator gives the fol-
lowing sketch of the subject matter from ver. 15 to 19. “1, Maxima
quin divind majestate exsplendescit J. C. in omni creatura morali
primus, ver. 15.; 2. Collegit is sibi societatem undique, que ex
ipsius mente Deum veneraretur, fundavitque regnum morale, v. 16.;
3. Huic ipse (nemo alius) preest, in omnibus facilé princeps, v.
17—19.; 4. Ex omnibus autem gentibus sine ullo discrimine col-
legit sibi cultores, v.20.; 5. Atqui eodem honore dignatus est et
vos, ctyjus pretium persentiscetis, dummodo firmos vos geritis et
constantes.”’ All this, to say the least, is extremely plausible, and
there is much to countenance the opinion. Insomuch that even
some very orthodox divines seem inclined to adopt it, observing that
other and unexceptionable proofs remain of the divinity of Christ,
and that (as Mr. Slade remarks) even from the figurative sense the
same inference may be fairly deduced; for he who could so newly.
create the heavens and the earth, as to bring them, by his power, ἡ
into an universal subjugation to himself, can hardly be imagined as
less than divine.’ This may be true; but I cannot without regret
contemplate the wanton profusion and recklessness with which
important evidences of the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel are
squandered, as if our stores were inexhaustible. Let it be remem-
bered, that when Commentators admit certain doctrines in a gene-
ral way, and yet can scarcely ever find them in any specific passage,
their belief in them is, to say the least, very equivocal. As an in-
stance in point, I need only refer to the case of the excellent Dr.
Macknight, who, though he always continued in the profession of
Calvinism, yet hardly any where espouses those peculiar interpreta-
tions on which Calvinism is founded. Who, then, can suppose him
to have been really a Calvinist? The application is obvious: and

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 11

the spirit with which important evidences are thus thoughtlessly
squandered away, is much to be deprecated. I cannot, therefore,
but add my humble mite of praise (little as it is needed) to the
efforts of one venerable Prelate, who in reference to a long contro-
verted passage, has had the courage to make such a stand against
the whole phalanx of Verbal Critics (who, in accordance with cer-
tain Critical Canons more applicable to Classical than Sacred Cri-
ticism, had cancelled the passage,) as has made even the most de-
cided and able supporters of the new opinion pause, and others sing
their παλινωδία. It is an important remark of Whitby, that this
exposition of the passage respecting a true and proper creation of
all things by Jesus Christ, is by the Father, from the beginning, laid
down as arule to which the Orthodox, keeping close, might show
that the Hereticks, who held that the world was created by angels,
deviated from the truth. On the present occasion, then, I see no suffi-
cient reason to abandon the common interpretation, which yields an
unobjectionable sense; and as to the context, it must be remem-
bered, that in so irregular a writer as St. Paul even that is a princi-
ple of no very certain application. As to the parallel passages which
are so confidently appealed to, they are, most of them, not really
such, or at least doubtful ; and in the interpretation of them the
present passage is appealed to, which is really reasoning in a circle.
Besides, the exposition in question, though it may be justified as far
as concerns κτέξειν from the usus loquendi, yet in other respects it
involves greater difficulties than the commanone. This, however,
will better appear from the following examination of the passage
in detail.

15. ὃς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ doparov. The best
Commentators, antient and modern, are agreed that
the sense is: “ who (i. 6. Christ) is (in his human
nature) the visible image of the invisible God.”
Here the antient Commentators deserve attentive
examination, especially Chrys., Theophyl., and Gicu-
men. My limits will only permit me to insert a short
extract or two. Theodoret: ᾿Εναργεῖς yap φέρει τοῦ
γεγεννηκότος τοὺς χαρακτῆρας. And again: ἔστι τοίνυν
εἰκὼν δηλοῦσα τὸ ὁμοούσιον" αἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄψυχοι εἰκόνες οὐκ
ἔχουσι τὴν οὐσίαν τούτων ὧσπερ εἰκόνες εἰσίν. ἡ δὲ ϑῶσα
εἰκὼν, καὶ τὸ ἀπαράλλακτον ἔχουσα, τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει φύσιν
τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ. Theophyl.: τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἔντιμον, καὶ
τὸ μεγαλείον τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ μονογενοῦς τίθησιν ἐνταύθα"
εἰκὼν, φησίν, ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ" οὐκοῦν ἀπαράλλακτος. And
again : εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἦν εἰκὼν, εἶχές τι λέγειν,
ὅτι y οἰκὼν οὐ φθάνει πρὸς τὸ πρωτότυπον. ᾿Ἐπεὶ
δὲ εἰκὼν ἐστιν ὡς Θεὸς καὶ Θεοῦ υἱὸς, ἀπαράλ-

12 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1.

AaKTos Kal εἰκὼν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου, ἀόρατος δηλαδή.
Whitby has here a very masterly annotation,
in which, after refuting the frigid and jejune
interpretation of the Socinians, who maintain
that Christ is called the image of the invisible God,
because he, by his Gospel, hath made known to us
the will of God, offers the following exposition :
«« Christ is the image of God, as making him who is
invisible in his essence, conspicuous to us by the
Divine works he wrought, they being such as plainly
shewed, that in him dwelt the fulness of the God-head
bodily ; for an invisible God can only be seen by his
effects of power, wisdom, and goodness, by which,
says the Apostle, from the Creation of the World the
invisible things of God, to wit, his power and- God-
head, have been made known by the things that are
made, Rom. 1,20. He, therefore, who in the Works
both of the Old and New Creation, has given us
such clear declarations of the Divine power, and
wisdom, and goodness, is upon this account as much
an image of God as anything can be; to this sense
the image of God here seems necessarily restrained
by the connective Particle ὅτι, he is the image of
God, for by him all things were created. Moreover,
that this place is parallel to that in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, the words sufficiently declare ; here
he is the image of God, there the brightness of his
glory, and the express image of his person ; here he
is the first-born, or Lord of every creature, there
the heir of all things; here it is said that all things
were created by him, there that he made the World ;
here that by him all things do consist, and there that
he supporteth all things by the word of his power ;
now, that there he is styled the image of God’s
glory, and the character of his person, by reason of
that Divine power, wisdom, and majesty, which
shined forth in his actions, Schlictingius is forced to
confess. It is not, therefore, to be doubted that he
is here styled the image of God in the same sense.”
The learned Commentator also thinks it highly

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 13

probable that he is called the image of the invisible
God, as appearing to the Patriarchs, and representing
to them that God, who lives in light inaccessible, to
which no mortal eye can approach. And in this
sense Christ said to Philip, “ He that hath seen me,
hath seen the Father.’ And St. Paul elsewhere
says of Christ, with respect to the Father, that he is
the radiance of His glory. The above opinion was
maintained by the Antinicene Fathers, and is some-
what countenanced by Chrys., Gicumen., and The-
ophyl. But it is involved in some difficulties, on
which see the note on Hebr. 9, 2. |

15. πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. On the interpretation
of this word (which the Apostle evidently employs in
an unusual sense) there are many difficulties
attendant: for the best interpretations have little of
actual authority in their favour. The most natural,
and probably best founded one, is that of the early
Fathers, and the Greek Commentators, who take it
to signify begotten before the existence of any created
being ; like mpwros in Joh. 1, 15 ἃ 30. So Theo-
doret: ἄλλως re οὐδὲ πρωτόκτιστον αὐτὸν εἶπεν ὁ θεῖος
ἀπόστολος, ἀλλὰ πρωτότοκον, τουτέστι ποώτον" οὕτω καὶ
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν' πρῶτος γὰρ ἀνέστη. And so
Dr. Wells, who paraphrases: “ The same second
person in the Holy Trinity may also be styled the
first-born of every creature, namely, as in respect of
his divine nature, he was begotten of the Father
before all creatures, and. as to his human nature, he
was the first that was raised from the dead, never to
die again.”? Another, and also well founded inter-
pretation, is propounded by Whitby, who, after
having thoroughly refuted the shailow inference of
the Socinians, that from this passage it must appear
that Christ is in the number of creatures, maintains
that he is so styled as being the Lord of all things.
And he compares the phrase in a parallel passage,
κληρόνομος πάντων, and proves, from the antients, that
Heir and Lord were terms interchangeable. He
concludes a long and able defence of this interpreta-

14 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

tion, by saying, that we may conceive the person of
whom David was a type, may be also here styled the
fast-born, as being Prince over, and high above all
creatures, they being all the work of his hands. In
the language of the Rabbins, too (as we learn from
Michaelis), God is called the first-born of the world.
This interpretation is also adopted by Schleus. and
Jaspis. And though it has been objected by Bp.
Middleton, that thus Christ would be said to be the
eldest born of his own creation, which (he observes)
would be absurd; yet I here desiderate the usual
judgment and good tasie of the learned Prelate ; for
it were injudicious, and even unwarrantable to thus
press on the consistency of a figure in so little regular
a writer as St. Paul.

The truth seems to lie between these two interpre-
tations.* Which to prefer I know not. Perhaps
they may be united. Bp. Middleton engrafts on the
former the following interpretation : ‘He was the first
offspring of that great and glorious scheme, formed
in the eternal counsel of God for the restoration of a
fallen world.’ ‘This may be true in doccrine, but it
cannot be proved to be the truth intended by the
Apostle.

16. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ
τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It cannot be denied that κτίϑειν is
sometimes used of a moral or evangelical creation.
But for the reasons above assigned, and because (as
Whitby says) not one instance can be shown where
the creation of all things in heaven and in earth, visi-
ble and invisible, is ever used in a moral sense, or
concerning any other creation than the natural, this
cannot be here admitted. Mr. Slade (partly from
Abp. Magee and Dr. Nares) truly observes, that the
terms are so general and explicit, that they cannot
properly be limited in this manner. The Apostle

* Foras to others, they have not the semblance of it; ex. gr.
that of Isidore, Erasm., and Michaelis, who accentuate πρωτότοκος,
thus taking the word in an active sense; which is liable to. insuper-
able objections, both grammatical and doctrinal,

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. 1, 15

may be understood as illustrating and establishing
the sovereignty of Christ over the new creation, by
the circumstance of his being Creator and King of
all the beings and powers in heaven and in earth.
The interpretation in question is indeed so frigid,
forced, andunnatural, nay, even (as Whitby says) flat
and mean, that one would wonder how so many eble
Commentators could have been induced to adopt it,
except from mere fondness for hypothesis. Whitby
has (1 think) unanswerably shewn the felicity of it,
and his chief reasons are these: Ist., the Apostle
here speaks of the creation of such things as are not
capable of a moral creation: since αἰ must compre-
hend inanimate substances; and to the Angels,
whether the good or the bad, it can by no means
apply.* @dly., the words in this sense were far from
being true when the Apostle spoke them ; for only a
very small remnant of the Jews were then converted
to the Christian Faith, and of the Gentiles few, in
comparison of those multitudes which afterwards
embraced the Faith; and yet the Apostle plainly
speaks of a creation wholly past already. 3dly., The
Apostle afterwards enters upon the moral creation,
at ver. 18, 19 & 90. (as it should seem, engrafting it
upon the other Edit.). Now these things being thus
connected by the Particle καὶ, to what he had before
said of the creation of all things by Christ, demon-
stratively show that he was not then speaking of that
revelation, which he begins to speak. of in these fol-
lowing words.

16. τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, ““ created
by God through him, as instrumental cause.’
Eis αὐτὸν, “ for his governance, and for the mani-
festation of his power and wisdom therein.”

17. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστι πρὸ πάντων, Kal τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ
συνέστηκε. This is evidently ἃ further developement

* So Bp. Pearson on the Creed, who, in his luminous exposition
of this text, shows that the verb xri@e.v,as applied to the angels,
must be understood of their “original creation ; they could not be
said to be created anew.

16 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

of the same thought as that of the preceding verse.

Here the suppoxters of the new interpretation are

put to great straits. First they interpret προ, not of
pre-existence but of supereminence, an interpretation,

they think, required by the following words. Doddr.

expresses Goth. But the former interpretation de-

serves the preference. And so Theophyl., who

remarks, that the Apostle does not say, was before

all, but is, as being especially appropriate to the

Deity. Nor can the words καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτώ

συνέστηκε, Without great harshness, be interpreted of
the moral preservation, governance of, &c.; q. d. ‘*not

only the Jews and Gentiles are become τὰ ἀμφότερα

ev (Eph. 2, 14, 16.), but all the various orders of
beings will together be subject to Christ, as one har-

monized whole:” a sense for which there is no good

authority: whereas of that of create there are

abundance of examples, both in the Scriptural and

Classical writers, which may be seen in the Com-_
mentators, or Schleus. Lex. ‘The sense is: ““ were

created, and are preserved. So Theodoret: Οὐ yap

μόνον ἐστὶν ἁπάντων δημιουργὸς ἀλλὰ καὶ προμηθεῖται wy

ἐποίησε, καὶ κυβερνᾷ τὴν κτίσιν.

18. καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος. The
Apostle now engrafts on the natural creation of all
things by Christ another view, in which he alludes
to the moral or evangelical creation. So Theophyl.
observes, that having spoken of the dignity of the
Son, he now speaks of his condescending humanity.
And Theodoret remarks: ἀπὸ τῆς Θεολογίας εἰς τὴν
οἰκονομίαν μετέβη. :

The sense is: ““ And (moreover) he is the head of
the body of the Church (He), who is the beginning,
or author of the Church, the first-born, or Lord of
the dead.””, The comparison in κεφαλὴ, &c. is fre-
quent; as infra ver. 24, 2, 19., Eph. 4, 15 & 16.,
1 Cor.11, 3. Christ is here said to be the πρωτότο-
kos ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, as at 1 Cor. 15, 20, he is called
ἀπαρχὴ Tov κεκοιμημένων. By the ἐκκλησία, is meant

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 17

(Theophyl. observes), the whole race of men. And
so Est. andMackn.

13. ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων. The
recent Commentators take the ἵνα in the eventual
sense ; which, however, seems not very necessary.
IIgwrevew, in the sense to be first, is frequent both in
the Sept. and the Classical writers; and is used of
Kings, Princes, and Governors. At πᾶσι, some
supply πράγμασι; others, ἀνθρώποις. The latter
method is preferable; but both may be included.
And so Theophyl. explains: ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν
θεωρουμένοις. Kal γὰρ καὶ πρὸ πάντων γεγένηται ἐκ τοῦ
Πατρὸς, καὶ πρώτος πάντων ἐστὶν, ὡς κεφαλὴ τῆς EKKAY-
σίας, καὶ πρὸ πάντων ἀνέστη, χαριϑόμινος αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀφ-
θαρσίαν, ὡς ἀπαρχή. δ GAO) “SOR

19. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ TANLWP.A κατοικῆσαι.

There is some little ambiguity and obscurity about this
sentence, which may, perhaps, be imputed to the awful nature of
the subject treated on. The recent Commentators here propose
several novel modes of interpretation, which, however, effect so
considerable a change in what has been, from the earliest ages, the
received interpretation, that ἔ cannot venture to place much con-
fidence in it. The general rules of Grammarians and Critics ought
indeed to be applied with great caution in cases like the present,
where there is no reason to think that the Apostle had any thing of
that sort in view, and in which the subject matter rather than the
words themselves must be attended to. I see no reason to desert
the opinion of the antients, and most moderns, that at εὐδόκησε
must be suppled ὁ Θεὸς. The sense is: ‘‘ For in him (God) was
pleased that all the fullness (of perfection and government) should
dwell;”’ as Gal. 1, 15. See also Rom. 15,26. ‘Theophyl. explains:
TO πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος; τουτέστιν, εἴτι ἦν 6 Yids καὶ Λόγος, ἐκεῖ
ᾧκησεν, οὐκ ἐνέργεία τις, ἀλλ᾽ οὐσία. Οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ἄλλην εἰπεῖν
αἰτίαν, εἰ μὴ τὴν εὐδοκίαν καὶ τὴν θέλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rosenm.
(partly from Noesselt) gives the following explanation οὗ πλήρωμα :
““ Plenitudo activé et passive accipitur, i. 6. de iis que implent, dant,
docent, aut que capiunt aliquid, possident, eoque ornati sunt vel im-
buti, sive de copid quacunque, Joh. 1, 16., Rom. 11, 25 & 12.
Hoc loco intelligitur de dotibus, quas Deus Christo concesserat, 1n-
primisque de cognitione Dei quam tradere hominibus, doctrinAque
coelesti, qua vim monstrare ad veram animi salutem deberet, f. 2, 9.”
The subject, however, is more solidly and fully treated on by Whitby,
thus: “ The great end of our Saviour’s sufferings was to rescue our
bodies, condemned for sin to death, from that mortality, and to
bestow on all whom God should give him, eter: life, by raising of

VOL. VIIE. Cc

18 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

their bodies to a state of incorruption. So Hebr. 2, 14 & 15.
Therefore the Church which is his body, is represented as the
Church of the first-born enrolled in heaven, Hebr. 12, 23.,a Church
against which the Gates of Hades, or of Death, shall not prevail to
hinder their enjoyment of this resurrection to a life of happiness ;
they are the sons of God, and therefore children of the resurrection,
Luke 21, 36., therefore heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, who
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious
liberty of the sons of God, v. 21., shall have the adoption, to wit,
the redemption of the body, ver. 23 , and they are also represented
as persons fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of Christ, by
having their vile bodies changed into the likeness of Christ's glorious

body, ver. 29. Note, 2dly., That to this end was Christ raised, that
he the first-born from the dead, might raise up his whole body from
the dead, he being raised from the dead as the _first-fruits of them
that slept, 1 Cor. 15, 20., for to this end Christ both died and rose
again, that he might be the Lord both of the dead, and of the living,
Rom. 14, 9., and God hath therefore exalted him, that at the name
(i. e. the power) of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven,
in the earth, and under the earth, Philip. 2, 10., that is, the bodies of
the dead: for by this argument, and from these very words, the
Apostle proves the resurrection, and a future judgment, Rom, 14,
10,11, 12. He is, therefore, so the first-born of the dead, as to be
the Lord of them, according to our former interpretation of the
word first-born, as to have power to raise them up who sleep in him,
and bring them with him, 1 Thess. 4, 14., to give eternal life unto
them, and raise then up at the last day, Joh. 5, 28, 29., 17, 2. And
thus hath he the pre-eminence in all things, being Lord of all
creatures, dead and living, and giving both their first and their new
being to them, and rendering his members conformable to his glori-
ous image, that so they may be joint heirs with him in glory.”

20. καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι--- οὐρανοῖς. Here
must be repeated εὐδόκησε ὁ Θεὸς. ‘The words τὰ πάντα
—elre τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς have not ἃ
little exercised the Commentators. The best founded
opinion seems to be that of Hamm. and the most
eminent Interpreters since his times, that the neuter

gender is here put for the masculine, as often: and
that by te πάντα, as far as regards the τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
may be understood Jews and Gentiles. See the long
note of Hamm. They might have added, that yévy
is here understood.

᾿Αποκαταλλάξαι is a very strong term, and imports
far more than καταλλ. Whether by αὐτὸν be meant
God, or Christ, Commentators are are not agreed.

The latter seems to be the best founded opinion ;

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 19

but both may be admitted. This “ complete recon-
ciliation,”’ it is said, was effected, and peace restored,
by the blood of his cross, i. e. by the blood of his
body shed on the cross.

On the meaning of τὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς there is some dif-
ference of opinion, on which I beg to refer the
reader to Wolf’s Cure. I must confess, that upon
the whole, I see no opinion so probable as that of
the antient Commentators and Dr. Whitby, which is
embraced by Dr. Doddr., the former of whom ren-
ders: “ and by him to make all things friendly in
him, making peace between them by the blood of
his cross.”’ And in his note he observes, that whilst
man continued in his obedience to God, angels and
men were in a perfect friendship, but when men be-
came disobedient to their Sovereign Lord, the
angels became averse to them, because their Lord
was dishonoured by them: but God being reconciled
unto us by the death of his Son, they also became
friends and ministering spirits to us,and we became
of the same Church and body with them, under the
same head Christ Jesus, Heb. 12, 22. And so all
things in heaven and earth were gathered into one
Christ. Eph. 1, 10.

21. καὶ ὑμᾶς πότε---τοῖς πονηροῖς. What he had said
of Jesus Christ the Apostle now applies to the state
of the Colossians, as formerly Gentiles, and now
Christians. (Heinr.)

᾿Απηλλοτριωμένους, “ aliens from God, and conse-
quently alienated or separated from, deprived of, the
divine promises and benefits.” Compare Tit. 3, 3.
Eph. 2, 12.4, 18. where see the note. ‘The words
ἐχθροὺς τῇ διανοίᾳ are exegetical of the preceding.
See Rom. 5,10. The διανοίᾳ is justly regarded by
the antient Commentators as a strong term denoting
deliberate and purposed enmity. It must, at least,
indicate that it was deeply seated, namely, in the
thoughts as well as the affections, and developing
itself in evil works. ’Ev, in, by; like the Hebr. 3.

Q1. νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν. The δὲ is by Beza ren-

C2

20 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

dered sanéomnino. I prefer, however, our Common
Version yeé; for the participle seems to have what
may be called a hypoadversative force.

22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὑτοῦ. These words
are by some considered as pleonastic. Yet they
impart great energy to the sentence. Besides,
there seems to be an allusion to the other and glori-
fied nature now enjoyed by Christ in the union of the
Godhead. Others explain the cop. as denoting the
body of the Church into which they were now incor-
porated. But nothing can be more harsh or far-
fetched.

At παραστῆσαι must be understood εἰς τὸ, which
signifies the end and purpose. ‘Theophyl. compares
this with the ἱκανώσαντι ἡμᾶς a little before; q. d.
“δ hath not only liberated us from sin, but like-
wise bestowed holiness, not of a common sort, but
pure and irreprehensible.” Compare Eph. 5, 27. (and
the note) and 2, 13—18. and the notes.

28. εἴ ye ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ ἐδραῖοι.
The εἴ ye carries with it an éllipsis, as: ‘* And thus it
will be with you, if indeed, ἄς. Τεθεμελιωμένοι καὶ
ἑδραῖοι, “ grounded and founded, and therefore sta~
ble.” See the note on the parallel passage of Eph.
3, 17., to which I would add, that there is a mas-
terly criticism on the passage by Phot. in his Epist.
p. 238. Montac. The whole Epistle will repay an
attentive perusal, and is highly characteristic of
the acuteness and consummate erudition of that ex-
traordinary man. :

23. καὶ μὴ μετακινούμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγε-
λίου. This is expressed with popular brevity. ‘The
sense is: ““ not shaken or removed from the hope of
the benefits revealed by the Gospel.” The μετὰ has
reference to the change to other opinions and the
taking up of other hopes. Thus in the Classical
writers it is applied to the changing of governments,
or altering of compacts. And Schleus. remarks that
in Theodotion’s translation of 1 Sam. 2, 30. μετακι-
νούμιενοι is used of those who suffer themselves to be

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. lI. Qi

drawn this way and that by persuasions, ac aura sunt
leviores. It is probable that the Apostle might have
that passage in view, and that the word might have
place in some copies of the Sept. then extant.

23. κηρυχθέντος ἐν racy τῇ κτίσει. By κτίσ. is, of
course, meant the moral creation, i. e. every nation
under heaven. This is regarded by most Commen-
tators as a popular hyperbole for most nations, or for
Jews and Gentiles. Which, however, is little neces-
sary. It is probable there was scarcely any one
civilized nation of the then known world to which
the Gospel had not been promulgated. See the note
supra ver. 15.

24—29. Here (Theophyl. remarks,) there may
appear an inconsequence, but there is, in fact, none.
For, after having said, “ I am a minister of the Gos-
pel, from which I conjure you not to swerve,” he
shows, that so true is this, that he even suffers for it,
nay even rejoices in his sufferings, especially as being
calculated for their benefits. Here St. Paul, as in
other Epistles sent from Rome, when in captivity,
introduces a mention of his bonds. This was, in the
present case, suggested by the word διάκονον, that re-
calling to his mind the cause for which he was suf-
fering this misery, of which he felt proud, and which
was the source of great joy; since his doctrines
were calculated to reform the morals of, and to con-
fer temporal and eternal happiness on all who em-
braced them. |

24. νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, ‘* Now
I rejoice at these my sufferings (which are thus) for
you, and your benefit.” Kal ἀνταναπληρώ---αὐτοῦ.
Heinr. would take the καὶ for kai γὰρ, But this is
too arbitrary. The Apostle seems to have intended
the χαίρω to be here understood for χαίρω ἀναπλη-
pov, “I rejoice, I say, at filling up,” &c. As to
ἀνταναπλ., it is regarded by almost all modern Com-
mentators as put for the simple ἀναπλ. But this is
a principle which I am always slow to admit, espe-
pecially in writers so little pleonastic as St. Paul.

QQ COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I.

Such pleonasms (as I have before observed) are
usually to be ascribed to our ignorance. Perhaps
the ἀνα may signify vicissim, on my part. See Wolt’s
Cure. The verb ἀνταναπλ. is somewhat rare ; yet
it has been adduced from some of the later Greek
writers by Alberti and Wets.

The words following τὰ ὑστερήματα are very ener-
getic, and to be ascribed to the high wrought feel-
ings of the Apostle on a subject so interesting to
him. In considering them, the antients and the
early moderns have (I think) taken a far more cor-
rect view than the recent Commentators (whose
speculations will be found in Heinr.). See Chrys.,
Theophyl., Qacumen., and Theodoret, from whom
Whitby remarks, that ‘Christ having told usthat what
is done to his members, is done to him, Matt. 25, 40
and 45, the afflictions of his members are styled the
persecutions and afflictions of Christ, Acts 9, 4 & 5.”
«© Now the Jews (continues he) speak much of the
afflictions of Christ and his disciples, comprehend-
ing both under the name of want san, the afflic-
tions of the Messiah.” ‘The Apostle (as Doddr. ob-
serves) could not mean that the sufferings of Christ
were imperfect as to that fulness of atonement which
was necessary to the justification of believers (or re-
quire, as the Romanists say, the addition of the suf-
ferings of the saints, Edit.) ; but he deeply retained
in his mind the impression of that first lesson which
he had from his Saviour’s mouth, viz. that he was
persecuted in his members (Acts 9, 4.); he therefore
considers it as the plan of Providence, that a certain
measure of sufferings should be endured by this
body, of which Christ was the Head; and he re-
joices to think that what he endured in Ais own per-
son was congruous to that wise and gracious scheme.”
See also Mackn.

25. κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν---μᾶς. The Apostle now
drops the image by which the Church is compared
to a body, and uses terms suited to a house, to which
indeed the Church is compared in 1 Tim. 3, 15.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. 25

Now over this house God presides as supreme οἰκόνο-
μος (οἰκονομία Θεοῦ), but also commits this οἰκονομία to
others, as here to Paul (τὴν δοθεῖσαν pos), and these
are called διακόνοι. (Heinr.)

The sense is, ‘‘according to the dispensation of
God given unto me.” Eis suas, “ for your benefit.”
This is put instead of a dativus commodi. Or (with
Heinr.) it may be construed with πληρώσαι, which
must have εἰς τὸ supplied. Many Commentators
take πληρῶσαι in the sense διδάσκειν. But it imports
something more, namely, fud/y teach and promul-
gate; as Rom. 15,19.* ‘The antients rightly consi-
dered this as having reference to that fuller instruc-
tion which the Gentiles needed.

27. οἷς ἠθέλησεν -- ἔθνεσιν, “to whom God was
pleased to make known what are the glorious riches
and preciousness of this mystery among the Hea-
thens.” ‘The ἠθελ. indicates (as Theophyl. observes)
the good pleasure of God in making it known to
whom he will. One cannot but notice, with Theo-
phyl., the exuberance (éy«os) of the phraseology with
which St. Paul expatiates on this interesting point.
Thus the terms πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης, which signify richly
gloricus, are highly impressive.

Some recent Commentators, as Heinr. and Ro-
senm., take the és for 6, and refer it to μυστήριον. It
is usually referred to πλοῦτον, which seems prefer-
able: but it may refer to both, by the πρὸς τὸ σημαιν.,
though only accommodated in gender to one. So
Theophyl.: ἐρμηνεύων τί τὸ πλοῦτος, καὶ τί τὸ μυστή-
ριον, ὃ Χριστὸς, Φησὶν, ἥτοι ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώσις, ὃς ἐστιν
ἐν ἡμίν.

The words following are added, Theophyl. ob-
serves, μετὰ ἐγκωμίων, and in order thereby to draw
them from angel-worship. Χριστὸς is by Theoph. well
explained the κ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γνώσις, the Christian doc-

* So Rosenm. explains it, ‘“ perfecté et cum prospero successu
docere, que plenior institutio in eo erat, quod Gentiles etiam ad so-
cietatem Christianam admittendos et perducendos esse doceret.”’

Q4, COLOSSIANS, CHAP, 1.

trine. The μυστήριον is explained by Theodoret,
* that the heathens sitting in darkness have received
the riches of divine knowledge, the φιλοτιμίαν τὴν τῆς
δόξης. The éamis τῆς δόξης is explained by the recent
Commentators the cause of the hope of. But I pre-
fer, with the antients, to take ἔλπ. τ. 3. for τὴν προσ-
δοκωμένην δόξαν. Of course, δόξ. denotes the felicity
laid up for Christians in heaven.

28. νουθετοῦντες πάντα, ἄνθρωπον, καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα
ἄνθρωπον, ** whom, (i. 6. his doctrine,) we preach and
promulgate, admonishing every man (of whatever
nation) of its claim to attention, and teaching every
man who attends to the admonition, the duties it en-
joins.” Such appears to be the true sense; for I
cannot think with some recent Commentators, that
the terms νουθετ. and διδάσκ. are synonymous. Even
Heinr. acknowledges that the former may relate to
the morals, and the latter to the understanding. So
Theophyl.: Νοήσεις δὲ νουθεσίαν μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς πράξεως"
διδασκαλίαν δὲ ἐπὶ δογματών. The πάντα is thought
to be emphatic, and ἄνθρωπον to be put for men, i. 6.
men of every nation. Others take ἄνθρ. to denote
man. But perhaps in the Hellenistic and popular
style πάντα ἄνθρωπον may be merely a stronger ex-
pression than τινα.

The words πάντα ἄνθρωπον after 613. are omitted in
several antient MSS., some Fathers, Versions, and
early Editions; perhaps rightly: but this is a ques-
tion of no easy determination.

28. ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ. in all wisdom. See the note su-
pra ver. 9 and infra 2, 3. ‘Theophyl. explains this not
only of that of the Scriptures, but of the art of rea-
soning and a knowledge of Greek literature. Παρα-
στήσωμεν, present; as courtiers do any one to a so-
vereign, or great man. See supra ver. 22. Τέλειον ἐν
Χριστῷ, 1. 6. (as the best Commentators explain)
« possessed of a perfect knowledge of Christ and the
Gospel, and exercised in the duties it enjoins.” “ It
must be observed (says Photius) that such was his
object ; if few comparatively would listen to his ex-

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. I. II. 25

hortations, and still fewer put them in practice to
the extent he wished, it was not his fault.” Some
recognize in rapacr. and τέλιον sacrificial metaphors.
But this is perhaps too fanciful.

29. εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιώ, ἀγωνιϑόμιενος----ἐν δυνάμει. These
are very strong terms; and the passage may be thus
rendered: ‘ For which (purpose) also I strenuously
labour, according to His energy who operates in me
powerfully.” The é&ywug. (which is an agonistical
term) is intensive of the κοπιώ. See 1 Tim. 4, 10.,
and on the whole verse compare Phil. 4, 13.

CHAP. II.

Ceasing to speak of himself, the Apostle now turns to the Colos-
sians, admonishing them to abide constantly by the pure and ge-
nuine Christian instructions which they had received from Epaphras,
and not suffer themselves to be led away by any of the preposterous
inventions of fraudulent teachers. An admonition, on account of
the many errors of doctrine with which they were carried to and
fro (see Prolegomena), especially necessary. Now this the Apostle
urges with the greater warmth, as he had not himself instructed
them (any more than the Laodiceans, Hieropolitans, &c.), and with
his admonitions he now and then mixes detestations of those adver-
saries who were striving to lead them away from the true path of
Christ. This disputation extends to the end of the chapter, and
proceeds in the following order: 1. It has given me much pain to
hear how you are carried away with false opinions, and certainly
there is nothing I more earnestly wish, than that you, and all whom
I have not been able to admonish and instruct in person, may be con-
firmed in the doctrine of Christ, so infinitely more sublime than all
human inventions, ver. 1—3. 2. Do not, then, commit yourselves
to those wily persons, but keep firm and eonstant to Christ, ver.
4—S. 3. For he is worthy of being embraced, and his transcend-
ent merits ever held in reverence and admiration, ver. 9—15.
Henceforth shun every thing that is abhorrent to the pure doctrine
of this Teacher, ver. 16—fin. (Hein.)

Verse 1. θέλω γὰρ---Λαοδικείᾳ. The yap has re-
ference to the ἀγωνιϑόμιενος in the preceding verse,
and (as Rosenm. observes) it suggests a reason why
the Colossians should remain constant in the per-
formance of their Christian duties. ἩἩλίκον ἀγῶνα

ἔχω. These words (which are explained by Theoph.

26 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

ἀγωνιῶ περὶ ὑμῶν) express the strong solicitude of the
Apostle with respect to the Colossians and Laodi-
cans, especially on account of the dangers they
were in from the arts of wily seducers, and seem to
imply a desire of seeing them, to avert that danger.

On Laodicea, the capital of Phrygia Pacatiana,
see Strabo, Pliny, and the other authorities adduced
by Wets.

1. καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑωρακάσι τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί.
These words are well paraphrased by Theodoret :
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων τών μηδέπω με τεθεαμένων. ‘The
expression éwp. τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκὶ is a mere
Hebraism, which ought not to be too much pressed
upon. The ὅσοι, &c. signifies, “ and as many other
churches in your province as have not yet seen me.”
It is well observed by Theoph., that the Apostle adds
Laodiczea and others, to spare their feelings in the
censures he has to introduce.

2. ἵνα παρακληθώσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν. Some Com-
mentators interpret the παρακλ. of consolation ;
others, of admonition. Much may be said in support
of either interpretation. _ddmonition and confir-
mation would be necessary to produce that comfort
and tranquillity which had been interrupted by the
dissensions introduced by rival teachers; to which
purpose it was necessary συμβιβάξειν, “to bring them
together,” and thus close up the schism. On cup.
see the note on Eph. 4, 16.* For συμβιβασθέντων
some MSS. read συμβιβασθέντες. Both expressions
are anomalous, but the common one seems the more
genuine, as being the harsher. MHeinr. says it may
be resolved into ive συμβιβασθῶσιν. But αὐτῶν might
rather be repeated. ‘The irregularity arose from the
Apostle’s saying “ their hearés,” for they.

The ἐν ἀγάπη is said to be for dv ἀγάπης, as show-
ing the bond by which all, being reconciled and

* Of this sense of the word Wets. has numerous examples; as
Thucyd. 8, 29. ξυνεβίβασε δὲ τὸν Περδίκκαν τοῖς ἀθηναίοις. Herod.
1,74. οἱ δὲ συμβιβάσαντες αὐτοὺς ἔσαν οἴδε. Dio Exc. p. 617.
ἐπέμφη γὰρ ὡς συμβιβάσων αὐτοὺς τοῖς ὁμοχώροι----διαφερομένους.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. oF

brought together, might resist the attacks of adver-
saries.

2. καὶ εἰς πάντα πλοῦτον τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέσεως.
Heinr. remarks, that as ἐν has shown the instrument,
so εἰς denotes the scope and end to which they were
to be united, namely, that their minds might be im-
bued with knowledge far more elevated than the
false teachers devised. And in order to heighten
the δεινότης, he, instead of εἰς πάντα Or εἰς πλήρη συν-
σιν, says εἰς πληροφορίαν τῆς συνέσεως, and, what
is yet more, εἰς πάντα πλοῦτον τῆς πληροφορίας τῆς συνέ-
σεως. Then, by apposition, he at εἰς erry. τοῦ μυσ-
τηρίου adds the cause for which he could ascribe πλουτ.
and πληροῷ. to Christian knowledge, namely, inas-
much as it leads us to understand the μυστήριον, or
divine decree for blessing men by Christ, hitherto
hidden. See supra 1, 26. As an example of πλοῦτος
in the above sense I would cite Jambl. de V. Pyth.
§ 67. πραπίδων πλοῦτον.

᾿Επίγνωσις signifies here, as often, an exacter know-
ledge.

2. καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. From the diversity
of readings found in the MSS., the Critics are inclined
to regard the whole clause as spurious. A conclu-
sion as rash and groundless as such usually are. The
true reading it is neither very easy nor very mate-
rial to determine. On these words see Wolf’s Cure
and especially Whitby.

3. ἐν ᾧ εἰσι πάντες---ἀπόκρυφοι. It is strange that
many recent Commentators should refer the ἐν # to
μυστηρίου ; which method, indeed, yields a tolerable
sense, but (as Wolf observes) not so good a one as
arises by referring it to Χριστοῦ, with the antients and
most moderns, and recently Heinrichs. It respects
(as Whitby observes) the person of Christ as Media-
tor, the knowledge of whom, the Apostle says, hath an
excellency beyond all other knowledge, Philip. 3, 8.
for ἐν ὦ περετμήθητε, t in whom ye are circumcised, ver.
11. and ἐν ᾧ, in whom ye are risen again, ver. 12.
plainly relate to Christ’s person and his merits as Me-

28 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

diator; and the whole of the following chapter treats
of him, and of the benefits we have received ἐν αὐτῷ
by him. ‘The Apostle also applies this to him by say-
ing (ver. 6.) as you received the Lord Jesus Christ, so
walk in him ; and by warning us against the deceit of
vain philosophy, because in Him dwelleth all the
Sulness of the Godhead.” Heinr. however takes Xg¢. |
to, signify the doctrine of Christ; which, (Whitby
observes, ) will make no great difference, since these
hidden treasures of Christ’s widom are revealed to
us by his Gospel only, and thence alone we obtain
all our knowledge of him as our Mediator, and of all
the offices he sustains as such.

8. οἱ θησαυροὶ τὴς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι.
A similitude taken from ἃ money-chest, from whence
the cash is taken when needed. See Macc. 1, 24.
Oyo. denotes (as Theophyl. remarks) the abundance
of the knowledge; and the πάντες its boundlessness.
The ἀπόκρ., too implies that he alone knoweth, and
therefore from Him we are to seek wisdom and know-
ledge. The ἐν ᾧ, too, denotes his self-derived wis-
dom and knowledge.*

4. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω---πιθανολογίᾳ. In the preceding
verse there seems to be an allusion to the false
teachers; as appears plainly from the present verse,
which is introduced by the formula τοῦτο λέγω, which
always imports an injunction to great attention.
Here, however, it has a somewhat different sense;
and λέγω seems to be a vox preegnans; 64. d. “ This
I say, meaning that,” &c. LTlapaaoyig. is a word
often used in the Classical writers; and joined with
ἐξαπατᾷν and other similar words ; it signifies to de-
ceive and circumvent, to come round (παρὰ) any one
by false pretences, and, in a general way, to deceive ;

* As the philological Commentators adduce nothing on these
words, the following passages may be acceptable. Eurip. Alcest.
6,14. Wakef. ἐν rots ἀγάθοισι δὲ παντ᾽ ἐνέστι σοφίας (Swpa). I
must also subjoin (what is singular) an imitation (for such I take
it to be) of this passage by the Apostate Julian, in his Hymn in So-
lem 2. ἀναλάβοντι σοφίας ἄνοιξαι θησαύρους.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 29

as here, for πιθαναλογία is added, which signifies a
specious and taking sort of address, adapted to per-
suade and bring over those with whom it is employed.
Theophyl. explains: Ti yap εἰ πιθανῶς λέγει; οὐδὲν
οἷδε, παραλογισμός ἐστι TO πᾶν, Kal σοφίσματα. Ο this
term may be compared the similar one χρηστολογία
at Rom. 16,18. Loesner aptly cites Philo 4, 14. C.
οἵτινες ὐήθησαν σοφίαν πιθάνων εἶναι λόγων εὕρεσιν, ἀλλ᾽
οὐ πραγμάτων ἀληθεστάτην πίστιν" and 888 Ε. τὴν τῶν
λύγων πιθανότητα.

Rosenm. thinks these deceivers were persons who
mingled together Judaism and Oriental philosophy.

5. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν
ὑμῖν εἰμι. Compare a similar sentiment at 1 Cor.
5, 3. where see the note. ᾿Αλλὰ, yet; as 2 Cor. 11,
6. 13, 9.

5. χαίρων καὶ βλέπων. An Hendiadis for, “ rejoicing
while 1 see.” So Joseph. Bell. 3, 9, 2. (cited by
Wets.) ὑμᾶς πρὸς τὸ παρὸν εὖ ἔχοντας χαίρω καὶ βλέπω.
and Galen: ἴδων καὶ χαίρων. Τὴν τάξιν ὑμῶν, © your
order. and regularity,” εὐταξίαν (as Theophyl. ex-
plains). A military metaphor generally implying
discipline, obedience, and constancy. So here, Heinr.
thinks, it may have reference to subordination and
obedience to the superior teachers, the order with
which every thing was done (as in 1 Cor. 14, 40.) ;
also the regular management of the funds for the
relief of the poor ; and especially constancy in ad-
hering to the faith of Christ.” ‘This last particular,
however, does not seem adverted to in these words;
but it is so especially in the words following, καὶ
τὸ στερέωμα τὴς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν.

6. ὡς οὖν παρελάβετε τὸν X. “I. τ. Κὶ., ἐν αὐτῷ περι-
πατεῖτε, ““Α5, therefore, ye have received the doc-
trine of Christ, walk, continue in it, and by it regu-
late your whole conduct.” ᾿Παραλαμβ. is used of
teaching of every kind, both oral, and by letter.
See 1 Cor. 11, 23. &c. Περιπατεῖν, as Heinr. re-
marks, here denotes not merely the habitual regula-

30 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IT.

tion of the life, but continuance in doctrine; since
the whole chapter is not ethical, but doctrinal.

7. ἐῤῥιθωμιένοι καὶ ἐποικοδομιούμιενοι, ““ rooted and
well founded* in it;” as Jude 90. Both these ex-
pressions are explained by the βεβαιούμενοι. See the
note on the parallel passage of Eph. 8,17. Heinr.
observes, that καθὼς ἐδιδ. must be closely connected
with πίστει ; and περισσεύοντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ,
imports a progressive increase in faith and in per-
formance of good works, as the fruits of it.” But
the former seems all that is here intended; and σὺν
εὐχαριστία signifies “with thankfulness to God for
your conversion.” See 1, 12. and Ps. 100, 4.

8. βλέπετε μὴ τις---ἀπάτης, ““ See, mind lest.” So
Matt. 24, 4. βλέπετε μὴ τις ὑμᾶς πλανώση. The verb
in this sense has usually after it a negative particle,
oran ἀπὸ. Ἔσται 6 συλαγωγῶν, is said to be for
συλαγωγῇ, perhaps by a sort of Hebraism. Yet there
seems more of energy and emphasis. Συλαγωγεῖν
signifies literally to carry off spoils or booty. Making a
spoil of you may therefore import either, “treating you
as things to be sacked, and spoiling your Christian
goods ;” or, ‘* carrying you away with them, as the
sacker carries off the inhabitants as a booty.” The
former seems preferable. Theophyl. thinks (as also
Douneus) that there is an allusion to a thief who
privily digs his way into a house, and steals the
property.

8. διὰ τὴς φιλοσοφίας καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης. This is con-
sidered by most Commentators as an hendiadis, for
** sophistical and fallacious philosophy.”+ For the

* Like the immense stones without cement which formed the
foundations of the edifices of the antients. See the note on Eph.
3, 17., to which may be added a passage of Demophilus, cited by
Bulkley on Joh. 15, 5. Ριξωθέντες ἐκ Θεοῦ καὶ φυέντες, ἃς, Having
been rooted and sprung up from God, let us adhere to our root ;
for like streams of water divided from their fountain, so the plants
of the earth, cut off from their root, soon become withered, dry,
and rotten.”

1 The same interpretation is adopted by Schoettg., who has here
along and able annotation. Grot. observes, that the Apostle uses

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. $1

Apostle (they say) does not absolutely condemn
philosophy, but κατὰ τι, comparate, i.e. out of its
proper limits, and exercised upon matters which
exceed its comprehension. But I rather apprehend
that the Apostle means to censure the Grecian phi-
losophy in general, which was altogether hostile to
the Gospel, and could by no means be mixed with
it, but to the detriment of the latter; especially
since (as Heinr. observes) the term φιλοσοφία also
denoted what we call religion, and is applied as such
by Josephus and Philo to the Jewish religion.

As to the persons here meant, some (as Whitby
observes) fix on Simon Magus and the Gnostics.
Others, on the Jewish Doctors, who then mixed the
philosophy of the Heathens with their ceremonial
worship, and had learned to allegorize it. Others,
again, divide the matter between Jews and Gentiles.
“That the Jewish Doctors (continues he) are, in a
great measure, adverted to, appears from ver. 14—16.
This indeed seems the key of the following, which,
may be distributed into two heads: 1. Cautions
against the seductions of the Jews zealous for ob-
servation of their rites and ceremonies; 2. against
the seductions of the Heathens by their vain philo-
sophy dressed up by them anew, both as to its doc-
trines and morals, and set off with the most specious
pretences, styled here πιθανολογία, enticing speech.”
See also Mackn. and especially Wolf’s Cure.

On the στοιχεία τοῦ κόσμου, see the note on Gal.
4, 3.

9. ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν TO πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος
σωματικῶς.

The connexion is thus traced by Whitby : “ (of which philosophy
ye can have no need) since,” &c. But this seems too arbitrary. It may

φιλοσοφ. because it was the received term; but by adding τῆς
κενῆς ἁπατῆς he expresses its real nature; since it deceived many
by professing to be what it was not, and promising what it did not
perform. So that though the knowledge of it was not of itself
bad, yet it was dangerous ; and certainly after the Jews had studiec
philosophy, their antient doctrines were much corrupted,

32 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

be more closely traced thus: ‘ (And yet their philosophizing ought
to be κατὰ Χριστὸν; as being Christians,) for in him dwelleth,” ἃς,

On the sense of the words the antient and modern interpreters
exceedingly differ. The antients and earlier moderns recognise in
them a strong evidence of the Deity of Christ; and they assign the
following sense: ‘‘in whom the whole fulness of deity substantially
dwells.” Of σωματικῶς there have been,even among the orthodox, three
interpretations, which are thus stated by Wolf: 1. corporally, so that
the body of Christ as a subject of habitation be signified ; 2. truly,
as indicating the mode of habitation; 3. substantially. The first
is supported by Theodoret, Gicumen., and many moderns. The
second is modified by some, so as to mean solidly, really, in oppo-
sition to types and shadows. So Glass, Hamm.,* Hackspan, Vi-
tringa, and most Lutherans. The third interpretation is supported
by many antients, Thus Theophyl.: τουτέστιν, οὐκ ἐστιν évepyeia
τις, ἀλλὰ οὐσία Kal ws σωματωθεὶς Kai μία ἀπόστασις ὧν μετὰ TOU
προσλήμματος. Ἡ καὶ οὕτω, κατὰ τὸν ἄγιον Κυριλλον, ὡς ἂν ἐν
σώματι ἐνοικήσῃ ψυχή ἐνοικεῖ δὲ αὔτη σώματι οὐσιωδῶς καὶ ἀδιαι-
ρέτως, καὶ ἀφυτῶς, substantially, or personally. And so Bochart and
Suic., Thes, 2,1217. Wolf (rightly I think) is of opinion that all
three interpretations (so that the word Θεὸς be taken of the nature
of Christ) are so far from being adverse, that they are reconcilable,
and arise one out of another. ‘Thus (continues he) the divine
nature of Christ (or the Adyos) is said to dwell; which necessarily
supposes a sulject for indwelling, and such is the body, or human
nature of Christ. In that the λόγος dwelt, not by shadow, appear-
ance, or figure, but truly and in presence. And if so, then not
only ἐνεργητικῶς and effectively, but in substance and essence.”’

The above seems, upon the whole, a correct representation of the
sense. It is observed by Whitby, that the Apostle does not directly
say, that Christ is God, but expresses his divine nature thus, partly
to represent to the Jews the divinity of Christ, with allusion to the
God of Israel dwelling in the Temple, partly to oppose him to the
πλήρωμα Of the Gnostics, and to the partial deities of the Heathens.”

We may (I think) conclude, with Whitby (adopting the words of
the Council of Antioch), that the body born of the Virgin, receiving
the whole fulness of the godhead bodily, was immutably united to
the divinity, and deified, which made the same person, Jesus Christ,

* His words are these: “ In Christ the deity dwells in fulness,
so as nothing could be added to it, and so in him bodily, that is, as
the sun dwells in the firmament, where the body of it is. The
whole divine nature is not only in part, but fully, without absence
of any part of it, in Christ; and that not by a species, or image only,
but really and substantially: and so consequently, (which is the
thing here designed to be proved by it) the will of God must be
supposed to be so revealed in Christ or by Christ, that there can be
no need of any addition from the Heathen philosophy, or from the
Jewish law.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 33

both God and ‘man.” Or (to use the words of Doddr.), as the
passage contains an evident allusion to the Shechinah in which God
dwelt, so it ultimately refers to the adorable mystery of the union of
the divine and human natures, in the person of the glorious Emma-
nuel, which makes him such an object of our hope and confidence,
as the most exalted creature with the most glorious endowments
could never of himself be.” Yet, strange to say, most interpreters
for the last century have taken up expositions which approximate
more or less to the Arian heresy, or even that of Socinus hiniself,
regarding the words as merely signifying that God hath lodged
in the hands of Christ a fullness of gifts to be conferred upon men ;
or, as only referring to his complete knowledge of the divine will.
But there is so little ground for either opinion, that I may be held
excused from detailing them, or the chiefarguments brought against
them. The former may be found in Heinr. and Rosenm., and the
latter in pe and Mackn., or in the abstracts of Mr. Slade.

10. καὶ ἐστε ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι, “ And (so) ye
are complete i in him, in all knowledge necessary to
salvation.” The interpretation, hoon of πεπλ.
will depend upon that adopted in the foregoing
verse.

10. ὃς ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης ἀοχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας. This
is to be understood as said emphatically, and with
reference to some others in whom the _ heretics
thought part of the power was vested. So Simon
Magus and Corinthus, a statement of whose notions
on this subject | may be seen in Whitby.

11. ἐν ᾧ καὶ περιετμήθητε περιτομῇ ἀχειροποιήτῳ.
The ἐν is for 3, by. We have here a popular mode of
expression for, ‘by him ye have obtained a circum-
cision not made with hands and corporeal, but spiri-
tual, and consisting in the putting off the sins of the
body and the flesh, even by the circumcision (enjoin-
ed) of Christ.” As the circumcision Heieanofanes is op-
posed to that ἐπ the flesh (see Eph. 2, 11. .)» urged by
the false teachers, so is the circumcision ἀχειροποίητος
that of the heart, and divinely effected, (which is
spoken of in Rom. 2, 29), and of which even the
Prophets of the Old Testament make mention. See
Deut. 30, 6. Jer. 9, 26.

11. ἐν τῇ ἀπεκδύσει τ. σ. τ. & τ. σ. Heinr. observes,
that as ἐνδύσαι signified close connection with, so did
ἀπεκδύσαι denote the complete laying aside ‘of any

VOL. VIII. D

34 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

thing, as of a garment (See Eph. 4, 22.); a meta-
phor derived, as Schoettg. thinks, from the Hebr.
won. By σώμα τῆς σαρκὸς is meant, “the body,
which indulges in the corrupt desires so natural to
it.” The words τών ἀμαρτιών, if genuine, (though
they are omitted in many MSS., Versions, and Fa-
thers, are by Matthzi admitted to savour of a gloss,
and are cancelled by Greisb.), have the force of an
adjective. It is plain that to put off this body of sin
signifies, ‘no longer to employ it for sinful pur-
poses;” which putting off'is compared to circumci-
sion, since thereby sin is mortified, and cut out, and
the principle of sin being kept under, we attain unto
purity and holiness of life.

12. συνταῷέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῴ βαπτίσματι. The
Apostle illustrates the reformation and purity re-
quired of Christians by a fresh image; though em-
ployed on other occasions, as in Rom. 6, 3. seqq.
where see the notes. On the sense of cuveyeip. see
the note on Eph. 2, 5 & 6.

13. καὶ ὑμᾶς, νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι. The
same moral reformation is now represented by an-
other and more forcible figure, similar to the former,
but not to be confounded with it. (Heinr.) Here
are enumerated other benefits received by Christians
from Christ. ‘There is the same sentiment, and in
almost the same words, at Eph. 2, 1—5., where see
the note. Before ἀκροβυστίᾳ must be repeated ἐν.
The sense is: ‘because of that prepuce which is
evil concupiscence.” Now this they had cast away
on becoming Christians. (ver. 11.) Ἢ ἀκροβυστία
τῆς σαρκὸς, may also signify ‘‘the state of a Heathen;”
for he who has the prepuce, is a Heathen; α. d.
ἐς miserable were you because of the heathenism in
which you lived.” (Rosenm.) The former interpre-
tation seems preferable. See Slade.

Ἡμῖν, which is found in the best MSS., Versions,
and Fathers, and is received by the recent Editors, is
undoubtedly the true reading, not from the strength

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 35

of MS. authority, (which, in such minutia, is little or
none), but because the words following require it.

It has been observed, by Whitby, that baptism
being:a rite of initiation to Christians, as circumcision
was to the Jews, it may be inferred that ‘* baptism
is Christ’s ordinance for infants of believing parents,
as circumcision was of old to the infants of the Jews.”
See much more in that Commentator.

14, ἐξαλείψας---τῷ σταυρώ.

The general scope of the Apostle in these words is sufficiently
plain ; but to determine the exact construction is not so easy. This
passage may, I think, be reckoned among the δυσγνόητα of the
Apostle, mentioned by St. Peter, on which more light is to be
desired, though little to be expected. Upon the whole, we must be
content with discerning the general sense, and not stumble at some
confusion of metaphor. Some assistance towards its illustration,
Rosenm. says, has been rendered by Noesselt in two Prolusions on
this subject in his Exerc. Script. p. 212—253. Yet I cannot find
any thing οὗ much importance and truth, that had not been already
discerned by former Commentators.

᾿Ἐξαλείψας. This simply signifies having annulled: but there is
(I think) an allusion, not, as most Commentators think, to the
“* crossing out an account in a tradesman’s book,” or the “ blotting
out or defacing a writing or bond (see Athen. ap. Wets.),” but to
“ the abrogating of any law by painting over the tablet on which
it was written.” So Lysias, cited by Rosenm.: τοὺς μὲν (νόμους)
évéypadge, τοὺς δὲ ἐξαλείφεν. I would observe that ἐξαλείφω in the
physical sense, paint over, occurs in Thucyd. 3, 22. Levit. 14, 42
& 48. 1 Par. 29,9. See also Pollux 7, 124., and Eustathius.

14. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμών χειρόγραφον. The yeigoypud. pro-
perly denoted a bond, obligation, syngrapha: but
from a comparison of the parallel passage of Eph.
2, 15.it appears to mean a writing generally. Yet
there is an allusion to its primitive sense; since, as
Theophyl. observes, the law was an ἰδιόγραφον made
with Moses, to which the Israelites bound themselves
in the following words, Ex. 19, 8. πάντα ὅσα ὁ Θεὸς
εἶπε ποιησόμεθα.

At doypa0o1some would understand σὺν ς but others
(more properly I think) ἐν; as in the parallel pas-
sage of Ephesians. Τοῖς δόγμασι is put, populariter,
for ὃ ἦν δόγμ. The καθ᾽ ἡμών is passed over by some
Translators ; by others rendered with respect to, or

D2

36 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

concerning. Our Common Version has “ against
us,’ which may be admitted, so that the sense be
that by which we familiarly say, “ I have an account
against you.” By the ddyp. are undoubtedly meant
the ordinances, statutes, and external rites of the
ceremonial law. Thus the Law of Moses is termed
γράμμω at 2 Cor. 3, 6.

The words ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν are explained by
Noesselt, Rosenm., and Schleus. (and, indeed, for-
merly by Vorst., Grot., and Pierce), as signifying,
which law was the cause of disagreement between
Jews and Gentiles.”* But I see not how ἡμῖν can
mean us Gentiles ; and the above interpretation of
ὑπεναντίον seems to be somewhat violent and preca-
rious. Neither, however, am 1 satisfied with the
common interpretation, “ burdensome to us,” which
sense cannot well be elicited from the term.

The phrase ἤρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου is sufficiently plain,
and appears to be a Latinism.

14. προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ. The force and
scope of the metaphor here is difficult to be deter-
mined. The best Commentators are agreed that
there is an allusion to the antient custom by which
decrees, or writings in general, were cancelled, by
having a nail drove through them. ‘They therefore
render: ‘ nailing it to his cross, and by this, man-
gling the χειρόγραφον, annulling it.” And this is very
agreeable to the general use of προσηλόω. For, be-
sides Lucian and Demosth. (cited by Wets.), it is
used of nailing a person to the cross in Joseph.
1247, 30. προσήλουν δὲ----τοὺς drovras. Some, indeed,

* See Noesselt ap. Rosenm. Whitby, too, explains it not very
differently, as being a middle wall of partition, hindering them from
coming to God, and putting an enmity between them and God's
people, ver. 14 & 15., which Christ hath taken away by abolishing
and dissolving the obligation of it, and admitting the Gentiles as
fellow-heirs of the same promises and blessings with the Jews with-
out it; or it is contrary to us, as being the ministration of death and
condemnation, 2 Cor. 3,7 & 9.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 37

as Theophyl., take τῷ σταυρῷ for ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ, “ by
his cross,” which yields a far preferable sense, but I
see not how this can be permitted by the words,
for the Dative τῷ σταυρῷ must be governed of πρὸς.

15. ἀπεκδυσάμιενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας ἐδειγ-
μάτισεν. Here it is, 4thly, ascribed to Christ’s me-
rits, that by the total vanquishment of the enemies
of Christianity he hath made our Christian course
easy, and our passage safe. (Heinrichs.)

The terms are all military, and derived from a
triumph over a conquered enemy, namely, by strip-
ping them of arms, vestments, &c. Heinrichs cites
Plut. Lucull. 514. ἐκδύσαι rots βασιλεῖς. Rosenm.
thinks that the middle has here no force, zmproprie.
But it isso used in Plut. 2, 173. (cited by Wets.)
ἔταξεν μαστιγοῦσθαι ἀποδυσαμένων τὰ ἱμάτια. Some
(with far less probability) take it for an agonistical
metaphor.

But who are meant by the apy. and efouc.? Most
recent Commentators (after Kypke) think, the de-
fenders of the χειρόγραφον just before mentioned, (1. 6.
the Mosaic Law), which was the greatest hindrance
to the propagation of the Christian religion ; namely,
the Jewish rulers and magistrates. (See Whitby
and Rosenm.) But this seems too hypothetical and
formal. I see no reason to desert the opinion of
the antients and most moderns, that the powers here
mentioned are those of the Prince of this world and
his subordinate agents, the evil demons (so Theo-
phyl. τὰς διαβόλικας δυνάμεις λέγει), including Death
himself, as personified. See 1 Cor. 15, 25 & δδ.
Heb. 2, 14. Joh. 16, 33, &c. And so Heinrichs.
Yet the Jewish rulers may be included.

Heinrichs would here understand the destruction
of idolatry, and the plucking up of deep-rooted su-
perstitions. But all that had not been yet effected;
though those particulars may be included, since ido-
latry and superstition were chiefly upheld by the
ἀρχαὶ in question.

Aciyparigey signifies “ to make one a public ex-

a

38 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

ample, or gazing stock,” to ignominiously expose to
triumph; as was done by conquered enemies. So
Theophyl.: ἀσχημονῆσαι ἐποίησεν. ᾿Εν παῤῥησίᾳ sig-
nifies openly, publicly. (So Theophyl. δημοσίᾳ, πάν-
τῶν ὁρώντων) ; as Joh. 7, 4. & 11, 54. (where see the
note); or confidenter, as Heinrichs explains. Θριαμ-
βεύω, with an accusative of person, signifies to triumph
over. Αἱ ἐν αὐτῷ some subaud χριστῷ; others,
σταυρῷ, which is greatly preferable. So Theophyl. :
ἐν TH σταυρῷ τοὺς δαιμόνας ἡττημένους δείξας. And
again: Ἔν τῷ σταυρῷ οὖν τὸ τρύπαιον στήσας ὃ Κύριος.
ὥσπερ ἐν δημοσίῳ θεατρῷ ᾿Ελλήνων, Ρωμαίων, ᾿Ιουδαίων,
τοὺς δαίμονας ἐθριάμβευσεν.

16. μὴ οὖν---σαββάτων. Theophyl. observes, that
hitherto the Apostle has spoken enigmatically on
this head; but now he is more explicit, after having
enumerated the above benefits. On the foregoing
enumeration of the merits of Christ in reforming
and saving the world, he engrafts a conclusion, ver.
16—fin., namely, that the praise of Christian virtue
is no longer to be sought by the observances of the.
Mosaic Law, but in true moral reformation.

16. μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς---σαββάτων, ““ Wherefore (such
being the case with the ceremonial law), let no one ©
judge you (i.e. as you observe,-or not) or condemn
you in (respect of any rite connected with) meats,”
Χο. The μέρει, Heinrichs observes, either signifies
in any part of (so Theophyl.), or it is pleonastic, (and
so it is considered by Rosenm. and Schleus.) ; as ἐν
παιδίας μέρει in Diog. Laert., and many other exam-
ples cited by Wets. But it should rather seem that ἐν
μέρει is well rendered in the Εἰ. V. in respect of. And
so Beza, Luther, and Wolf. ‘Thus it is much the
same with ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτω 2 Cor. 3, 9. 9, 3., in the
business of. And see 1 Pet. 4,16. The same ex-
planation will hold good of almost all the examples
adduced by the Philologists. The Apostle might
have written ἐν μέρει βρώσεως ἣ πόσεως, &c., but he
has chosen to vary the phraseology.

The other terms can require no explanation, See,

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 39

however, Mackn. on the σαββάτ., who rightly indi-
cates the obligation to the observance of the Chris-
tian Sabbath.*

17. ἃ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, TO δὲ σῶμα τ. X.,
“which things (as compared to the future benefits
to be obtained by Christ) are a mere shadow, but
the substance is solely Christ, and the advantages
to .be obtained by him.” So it is remarked by
Spencer ap. Whitby, that we are not to infer from
hence that these and all the ritual constitutions of
the Law of Moses, shadowed forth some Christian
mystery, but only that they were as mere shadows
compared to that solid and substantial truth which
Christ, by his Gospel, hath discovered to us.” And
such is the interpretation adopted by almost all ju-
dicious Commentators, antient and modern. So
Theophyl.: Τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ σκιά εἰσι, τὸ δὲ copa,
τουτέστιν, ἡ ἀληθεία, Χριστοῦ. “Ὥστε τί δεῖ σκιὰν κρα-
τεῖν, τοῦ σώματος παρόντος.

* On which subject I would respectfully refer my younger readers
to an instructive treatise recently published by the learned and or-
thodox Mr. Holden, entitled, <‘ The Christian Sabbath ;” a work
rendered almost necessary by the many frivolous pamphlets and
commentationes on this subject, especially a most pernicious one of
Gilbert Wakefield. To suchas these the words of Wolf are very ap-
plicable: ““ Optandum erat, ut nostratium nonnulli ad illorum ex-
emplum (adverting to certain writers who have written in vindica-
tion of the Sabbath) Sabbati Christiani moralitatem nunquam in
dubium vocassent, otiumque suum rebus et commentationibus pro-
ficuis potius et πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν aptis, quam talibus impendissent, que
ut rerum argumentis destituuntur, ita bonos offendunt, malos
autem cultus divini negligentiores reddunt.” Mr, Bulkley has here
much important matter from St. Barnabas, St, Ignatius, Justin
Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho), Irenzeus, Clemens Alexan-
drinus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome,
which I would recommend to the attention of Mr. Holden for a fu-
ture Edition of his work. Of these my limits will only permit me
to insert the following from St. Barnabas: ‘‘ The eighth day is the
beginning of another world ; therefore we celebrate the eighth day
with joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared and
ascended into the heavens ;” and Ignat. Epist. p. 34, 35. (speaking
of the antient Prophets): Eis καινότητα ἐλπίδος ἤλυθον, μήκετι σαβ:-
βατίξοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν Guy ξῶντες.

40 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

Of this sense of σκιὰ and σώμα it were needless to
adduce any of the numerous Classical examples col-
lected by the Philologists. On the words τὸ δὲ σῶμα
Χριστοῦ there is some uncertainty. But the best
Commentators are agreed that the genitive is put for
the dative with ἐν; q.d. ‘the thing (i.e. the truth
itself), the future blessings themselves are situated
and reside in Christ, from whom alone they are. to
be sought.”

18. μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω. The term κατα-
βραβ. (which is reckoned by Jerome among the
Apostle’s Cilicisms (though examples are found in
Demosth., Polyb., and Plutarch), has been variously
interpreted. It signifies, properly, “ to deprive any
one of the βραβεῖον, or prize, which he deserves, by
some art or trick (for κατὰ has thus the sense of
mapa). Hence it comes to signify, “ exercise unjust
and fraudulent judgment upon.” Whence it has
here been explained to deceive, circumvent, like wapa-
λογίϑεσθαι at supra 4. By others, as Bengel, it is in-
terpreted, “‘ exercise despotic and abused authority
over.” For other interpretations I must refer the
reader to Pole, Wolf, and Heinrichs. Wolf and
Hammond explain condemn; Whitby, damnify. The
interpretation first mentioned (which is supported by
our Common Version) seems to be the most natural.
The sense is clear from ver. 16. paris ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ;
4. d. ** Let no man deceive or damnify you, drawing
you off from the true doctrine to a factitious one at
variance with the Gospel.”

The use of θέλων is very anomalous; and several
Commentators render it, “ by a voluntary humility.”
And so Beza, Dav., Dath, and J. Capell. See also
Wesseling on Herod. 9, 14. But this may be wan-
dering too far. Theophyl. renders: θέλουσιν ἡμᾶς
καταβραβεύειν διὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης δοκούσης. Others
explain, “ delighting in,” i.e. by delighting, or who
delights in. So Casaub., Hamm., Vatablus, and
Knatchbull. It is not easy to say which deserves

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 41

the preference. Wolf, who carefully examines both,
assigns it to the former, and perhaps rightly. Almost
all recent Commentators adopt the latter.

On the sense of ταπεινοφροσύνη Commentators are
little agreed. Those who take θέλων in the significa-
tion dwelling in, render it, “ tenuitas in victu, an
ascetic and Pharasaical kind of life.” But this sense
seems too arbitrary, and is little authorized. I see
no reason to desert that of modestia, which is ac-
cordant with the usage of the Scriptural writers ;
and, united with θέλων, the term denotes (as Doddr.
says) “‘ an affected and fantastic, if not counterfeit,
humility and lowliness of mind.”

18. καὶ θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. Of these words
there are two interpretations; Ist, that of the an-
tients and most moderns, “ the worshipping of an-
gels (this being the genitive of object, on which see
Krebs in loc.) and interpreters of men’s prayers, and
their intercessors with God.” See Tob. 12, 15.
2dly, that of some eminent moderns, and especially
the recent Commentators, “ worship such as angels
render to God.” And so the genitive is used in
Sapient. 14, 27. But this interpretation is liable to
many objections, which are well stated by Heinrichs,
who satisfactorily defends the former, which is sup-
ported by the unanimous authority of the antients.
The words are levelled against persons who (whether
they derived their opinions from the Essenes, or from
some Heathen philosophers) maintained the existence
of angels or δαίμονες, as intercessors and mediators of
prayer (not of salvation), under an idea that imme-
diate access to the Deity, was unattainable and pre-
sumptuous. It is needless for me to enter into this
subject, since it has been so fully treated by Dr.
Whitby. Grot. well observes (after Theophyl.) that
there was an affectation of humility in this, as if they
dared not venture themselves to prefer their petitions.
It is well remarked by an anonymous writer ap.
Wets.: ““ Modestiam simulantes tumidi sunt.”

18. ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμιβατεύων, ‘intruding and prying

42 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

into that which he hath not, and doth not under-
stand.” Such appears to be the sense of ἐμβ., though
Philologists are not quite agreed, Jerome and Erasm.
rendering it, ““ tncidens fastuosé,’ by a metaphor
taken from the tragic €uBades. But this interpreta-
tion (as Beza and Schleus. observe), is neither agree-
able to doctrine, nor founded on any authority. The
sense ““ prying’? is supported and illustrated by
many eminent Critics, as Bos, Raphel, Schleus., and
Heinr., who adduce examples from the Classical
writers and Lexicographers. As to that of our
Common Version, intruding into, it is also well sup-
ported by Classical authority (see Schleus. Lex.) :
but the sense prying is more apposite; though, in-
deed, both may be united. I would render: ‘“ step-
ping out of his bounds, and prying into what it is
impossible for him to fathom.” ‘Ewpakev, known,
understood. A signification common in verbs of
seeing, both Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Rosenm.
compares 1 Tim. 1, 7.*

18. εἰκῆ φυσιουμένος, “ vainly puffed up and proud.”
This metaphor of inflation to designate pride is per-
petual. See the Philological Commentators. Εἰκῆ,
causelessly, irrationally, as accompanied with igno-
rance. So Matt. 9, 22. and 1 Tim. 6,4. τετύφωται
μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος. ‘This is the simplest method of
interpretation. Others are pursued by the Com-
mentators. See Pole, Wolf, and Heinrichs. It is
observed by Rosenm., that the words of Christ,
Luke 11, 5., contain so exact a description of such
kind of Jewish teachers, that it will serve as a com-
mentary to this passage.

* And he remarks: “ Nempe, qui addicti erant Judaicis insti-
tutis, ignorabant, concessa esse in legibus Mosaicis multa, que nec
vim tamen preceptorum haberent, omnia autem non nisi ad tem-
pus, nullis, nisi Israelitis injuncta, plurima preter hec hominum
arbitrio, non Dei mandato, sancita, pretereaque Christianis, a legis
Mosaicz vinculo per Christum liberatis, antiquata precepta, et vero
etiam iis, qui stirpe de IsrzliticA non essent, hec eadem, que
Judeis, religione servanda obtrudebant. Cf. 2 Cor. 3, 13.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 43

19. καὶ οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλὴν, ““ and not keeping
hold of, holding fast by the head (even Christ).’’
ἹΚρατεῖν signifies to hold fast by, keep close to, fol-
low. For examples Heinrichs and Schleus. refer to
Luke 4, 42. Acts 3, 11. and Apoc.2, 13. Κεφαλὴν,
** only master and moderator.” ’E& οὗ, for ἐξ ἧς, by
the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον. On the sense of the rest of
the passage, which is almost verbatim the same as
Eph. 4, 16.. see the note there, as also the notes of
Whitby and Mackn. in loc.

20. εἰ οὖν ἀπεθάνετε σὺν τὼ X. ἀ. τ. σ.τ. κι But
if ye be dead with Christ to, and have renounced
those elements of the world.” MHeinr. paraphrases :
“« Quam parum queso vobis constatis, quam vobis
contradicitis, si nuntio elementar ireligioni ceremo-
niarumque nugis misso, in eis tamen observandis
eque religiosos vos prestatis.’” The τὰ στοιχεῖα
Noesselt and Heinrichs explain of signs, ceremonies,
affecting the senses only, an external and adumbrated
worship of God, such as is described supra ver. 16
and Gal. 4, 10. Somewhat preferable is the exposi-
tion of er, by Koppe on Gal. 3, 4. and Schleus. in v. :
religio, rudior illa et imperfecta, sensibus omnia sub-
jiciens poenisque terrens, qua ad perfectiorem chris-
tianam preparandi erant Judai ceque ac Gentiles.
See the notes on the above passages of Galat. The
Critics just mentioned do not, however, successfully
assign a reason for this use of κόσμου, as applied to
the Jewish superstition. ‘They think it was so used
in order to retaliate on the Jews their own contemp-
tuous appellation bestowed on the Heathens. But
it perhaps rather denotes what we call the mob, the
profanum vulgus. So that by στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are
meant such rude, imperfect, gross, and sensual no-
tions of religion, as are suitable to the profanum
vulgus, the bulk of mankind.

20. ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ, viz. at baptism; as is
plain from supra ver. 13. and Rom. 6, 4., where see
the notes. Tw—doyparigerbe, “ why do ye hold
opinions as if living in the profession, not of the spi-

44 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

ritual and enlightened doctrines of Christ, but in the
gross and grovelling ones of the vulgus, namely, in
Judaism.” Δογματίξεσθαι is a word often used by
the Philosophers ; as Diog. Laert., Arrian, and Sext.
Emp. (See Schleus. and Wets.) Many Commenta-
tors explain it here, “ to suffer doctrines to be im-
posed upon you.” So Grot. and Schleus. Others,
“0 hold dogmas or doctrines.” The former inter-
pretation seems preferable, on account of the ἐντάλ-
para just after. Andso Theophyl.: ws raidia ἀρτι-
μαθῆ Kabyobe, ᾧησι, δογματιϑόμενοι καὶ νομοθετούμενοι τί
δεῖ ποιεῖν. ‘The latter, however, may be zncluded..
21. μὴ aby, μηδὲ γεύση, μηδὲ θίγῃς. Here we have
a parenthesis containing a specimen of the hind of
δόγματα just adverted to. ‘The words are strangely
rendered by Mackn., “Neither taste, touch, nor
handle.” Our common translation, if thus pointed,
will fully represent the sense: ‘‘ Touch not—taste
not—handle not ;” q.d. “ Touch not this—taste not
that,” &c. ‘These are (as Heinr. observes) speci-
mens of ἐντάλματα expressed imperatorid brevitate.
On the distinct sense of the ay, γεύσῃ, and θίγῃς
Commentators are by no means agreed. Some, as
Crell. and Heinr., regard them as synonymes accu-
mulated (by a sort of climax) to show the severity of
the interdict,* and all having reference to forbidden
meats. But this seems too formal; and θίγῃς will
scarcely bear the sense they assign, at least there is
no Scriptural authority for it. The same may be
said of ἅψη, which though it is often used in the
Classical writers, yet I think never in the New Tes-
tament. As to Slade’s criticism, that ‘* it never has
this except with the addition of a genitive,’ I must
confess that in the passages cited by the Commenta-
tors (and also a great number which I had myself
collected in the course of my reading) I do not find
one in which the genitive is omitted; yet I see not

* So Mackn. observes there is here a beautiful gradation ; eating
being more than tasting, and tasting more than handling.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 45

why it might not; as in Soph. Aj. 841. γεύεσθε py
Φείδεσθε πανδήμου στρατοῦ. In the present passage,
however, it could not have been expressed.

Others, as Grot. and Storr, take the ἅψη to mean,
“touch not a woman.” But though the Apostle
uses the word in that sense at 1 Cor.7, 1., yet it is
with γυναικὸς, the omission of which would here be
very harsh. Neither is it likely that the Apostle
would here introduce swch a subject, which indeed
would little correspond to the words following, ἅ
ἐστι---ἀποχρήσει. The μὴ ἅψης and μὴ θίγης seem to
be interdicts of the same species: but I am not pre-
pared to adopt Mr. Slade’s opinion, that “ the former
signifies handle not ; the latter, come not into contact
with.” For as to ἅπτεσθαι, usually signifying touch
with the hand,” that will equally hold good of θιγ.:
which does not reach far enough. It should rather
seem that ἅπτ. signifies to touch with the hand, lay
hands upon (as in Thucyd. 2, 49. τὸ μέν ἔξωθεν ἁπτο-
μένῳ σώμα οὐκ ἄγαν θερμὸν ἦν); whereas θίγειν signi-
fies something more, namely, contrecto ; whence it is
often used in sensu nequiori. Yet, for the reasons
above assigned, I would not seek such a signification
here, but refer it, together with ἅψη, to the having
contact, greater or less, with objects by which cere-
monial pollution might be incurred. It is evident
that the Apostle intends no great exactness.

22. ἃ ἐστὶ πάντα cis φθορὰν τῇ ἀποχρήσει. It is of
importance here to bear in mind what was just said,
namely, that the Apostle in the terms μὴ ἅψη in-
tended no great exactness. And therefore those
Commentators who here tell us that the ἃ ἐστι, &c.
has reference to all the above particulars, seem to
increase the difficulty very needlessly. On the sense
of the words Commentators are divided in opinion.
Much depends upon the sense in which ἀποχρήσει
is taken, which some, as Hamm., Doddr., Wells, and
Schmidt render abuse. Yet the sense they lay down
is quite at variance with the context, and, as Heinr.

4.6 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

observes, very jejune. Almost all Commentators,
antient and modern, take ἀποχρ. (and, I think,
rightly,) in the sense, use, or usmg. And so our
common Version, and also Wolf, whose words are
these: “ De usu ciborum ipso loqui Apostolum non
dubito. Neque enim in eo erat, ut ab abusu tantum
cavere juberet suos, qui ritus ejusmodi omnes penitus
intercedisse ante tradiderat.” Of this sense the
Commentators adduce examples, to which I could
add scores which I have noted down. Yet ail those
who adopt this sense, are not agreed in interpreta-
tion. Schleus. renders: ‘‘ Quarum rerum usus per-
niciem et maximas poenas affert.” And so Heinr.,
who thinks these are the words of a Jewish Doctor
ironically repeated by the Apostle. But such a sense
cannot fairly be elicited from the words ; and as to
Heinrich’s notion, it is too fancifvl. Upon the
whole, I see no interpretation so natural and proba-
ble as that of the antients, and, of the moderns,
Grot., Wolf, Rosenm., and others, namely, ‘‘ which
things are all so far from polluting the user, that
they rather themselves perish by using, and tend
only to corruption,” i. e. animal destruction; con-
formably to the words of our Lord, Matt. 15, 17 &
18. So Theophyl., who paraphrases: Φησὶν, ὅτι οὐ
μεγάλα τινὰ ταῦτα ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς φθορὰν καταλήγει τοῖς
χρωμένοις" φθειρόμενα γὰρ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ, διὰ τοῦ ἀφεδρώ-
νος ὑποῤῥει' Οὔτε οὖν ὠφελοῦσιν αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὐτὰ, οὔτε
βλάπτουσι.

The words κατὰ τὰ ἐντάλματα----ἀὀἀὄνθρώπων are to be
joined with doyparigerbe. ‘The sense of the two verses
20-—22. is thus expressed by Rosenm.: ‘ Quid sus-
cipitis aut fertis, si quid vobis ingerit, ista decreta
(qualia sunt: noli tangere; neve gustare, neve con-
trectare hujus rei aliquid, quod est vetitum lege
Mosaica veterumque preeceptis, cibos inprimis inter-
dictos, quod omne perit tamen 5. conficitur ipso
usu ;) que certé decreta proficiscuntur a preceptis
doctrinisque humanis.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 47

48, ἅτινα ἐστι---τῆς capkos, * which ἐντάλματα τῶν
ἀνθρώπων, &c. By these are meant chiefly those of
the Essenes. Aéyov many Commentators interpret a
pretext or pretence. See Doddr. and Kypke. But
I prefer the sense assigned by the antients and most
moderns, speciem, a show, not a reality. So Chrys.
and Theophyl. : λόγον---οὐ δύναμιν, οὐδὲ ἀλήθειαν. This
is hinted at in the μὲν without de.* Rosenm. (after
Noesselt) observes, that σοφία is here the same as
φιλοσοφία at ver. 18., or Ψευδωνόμος γνῶσις at 1 Tim.
6, 20.

23. ἐν ἐθελοθρησκείᾳ. There is here an ellipsis, to
be thus supplied: “ as shown, evinced only in ἐθελοθρ.
The word is rendered by all our English Translators,
will worship (i. e. voluntary worship), which may be
defended. (See Grot., and consult the long and
instructive, but somewhat rambling, annotation of
Hamm.) Yet I prefer the sense assigned to the
word, after much critical examination, by the Phi-
lologists of the last century (as embodied in Heinr.
and Schleus.), namely, “ an excessive, pretended,
and affected sanctity.” And this is also supported
by some antient Interpreters. ‘Thus Theophyl. ex-
plains it τὴν ὑποκρινομένην εὐλάβειαν ἐν τῇ θρησκίᾳ. See
also Chrysost. and Gicumen. And in this sense the
word is sometimes used by the early Ecclesiastical
writers. So ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκεία is cited by Heinr.
from Epiphan. de Heres., where it is used of the
Pharisees. Heinr. has ingeniously shown how ἐθελο.
comes to mean affected.

23. καὶ ταπεινοῷροσύνῃ. On the sense of this word
see the note supra ver. 18. From the context
it appears to signify that kind of affected humility

* On which it is remarked by Jerome ap. Wets.: ‘‘ Hoc loco
quidem conjunctio superflua est, quod in plerisque locis propter im-
peritiam artis grammatice Apostolum fecisse reperimus. Neque
enim sequitur sed vel alia conjunctio, que solet ei propositioni, ubi
quidem positum fuerat, respondere.” The criticism is, however,
like many other theological remarks of that Father, ill founded.

48 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II.

under which ever lurks pride,* and which is of all
kinds of arrogance the worst. ᾿Αφειδείᾳ cwparos.
This is explained by the recent Commentators harsh
treatment of ; as if it were said by meiosis, as ἀφει-
δεῖν in Thucyd. 2, 43 and 51. It is explained by
CEcumen. καταφρόνησιν τοῦ σώματος. And so Theo-
phyl. It evidently denotes a neglect of the com-
forts, whether of food or clothing, rest, &c. which
the body requires. I cannot think, with some, that
this includes flagellation.

23. οὐκ ἐν τιμὴ τινι πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς. Mackn.
here rashly supplies δὲ, and unwarrantably takes oc-
casion to suspend a clause from it, which disfigures
the sense of all the rest. The Apostle (I conceive) as
hehas shownin what Christian wisdom did πο consist
(namely, in unnecessary and affected austerities), so
now he shows in what it does consist, or is consistent
with, namely, τιμῇ πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς. By
τιμῇ is meant ἃ cherishing of the body, (for σώματος
must be repeated), a sense found in 1 Cor. 12, 23.
1 Tim. 5, 17. and elsewhere. The words πρὸς πλησ-
μονὴν show the kind of care here meant, namely, the
satisfying of its wants, so as to keep up its strength
for the duties of life (see Elsner), and that the body
may thus serve the soul, which an excess either way
would prevent. See Chrys. and Theophyl., and also
Mackn., who concludes by observing, that ‘* the
wisdom which teaches the neglecting of the body, is
not wisdom, but folly.” ‘This isso plainly the Apostle’s
meaning, that it is strange any should have missed it;
and yet many Commentators have so done; for, not
to notice the subtilties of Grot. and Heinr., and the
harsh constructions of Camer. and Casaub., even the
sensible Doddr. renders: ‘to the dishonourable sa-
tisfying of the flesh ;” a version entirely founded in
error.

* To which purpose may be aptly cited M. Anton. 12, 27. ὑπὸ
arugia (read ἀτυφίας) rigos τυφόμενος πάντων χαλεπώτατος. Here.
too, the words of our Christian Poet will be applicable :

‘* Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean ;
Humility may clothe an English dean,”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP, III. 49

CHAP. III.

Having thus far treated on what a true Christian
ought not to follow after, (see note on 2, 16.) the
Apostle now subjoins what he ought, and on what to
fix his affections. That admirable part of the Epistle
which now follows abounds in the most excellent
moral precepts, and impresses the mind with a deep
sense of the dignity and worth of a true Christian.
These extend to ver.17. (Heinr.)

VERSE 1 & Q. εἰ οὐν συνηγέρθητε τ. X. τ. &. 8. The
sense seems tobe: ‘‘ If then ye have really died with
Christ unto the observance of Jewish rites (see 2,
20), and have risen with him to better hopes, and by
his example profess to pursue better aims, no longer
then grovel in the mire of worldly and fleshly su-
perstition, but seek and follow after those purposes
which are heavenly, and aim at those blessings which
are seated where your Redeemer will dispense them,
who sitteth at the right hand of God for ever, and is
invested with authority to bless and reward all his
faithful servants.” Such seems to be the best ground-
ed sense that can be assigned, and it is supported
by the authority both of the antients and the most
judicious moderns. But the full meaning of the
Apostle requires to be developed at far greater
length. To which purpose the many excellent Ser-
mons of our best English Divines may advantage-
ously be consulted, one of which (Bp. Sherlock, 3,
11.) is pointed out by Mr. Slade.

The sentiment in τὰ ἄνω ϑητεῖτε is further de-
veloped in τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε---γῆς. The φρονεῖτε is well
rendered in our English Version, ‘ set your affec-
tions on;” from which Doddr. had causelessly de-
viated. On the τὰ ἄνω many Commentators have
indulged in ingenious, but little solid speculations.
Wets. understands it thus; “ Supera studere debe-
bant, sed non astra et motus lune, ut Judi et Py-
thagorei.” Calvin, with far more probability, takes

VOL, VIII. Ε

50 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.

it of the sublimer doctrines of Christianity, as op-
posed to the στοιχεία mentioned at 2, 20. Yet it is
objected by Doddr., that those are not in heaven.
This, however, seems not very conclusive. It is
plain that the words must be taken in their popular
acceptation, and in all that extent of signification
which a plain Christian would assign to them. And
it is well observed by Doddr., that the Apostle pro-
ceeds, on the principles he had laid down, to graft a
most important practical exhortation, different from
any he had advanced before (as he certainly does at
ver. 5.); yet nothing could more effectually tend to -
take them off from those bigoted attachments of
which he was solicitous to cure them.*

3, 4. These verses, Heinr. observes, are to be
conjoined, and mutually explained from each other.

᾿Απεθάνετε γὰρ, “ you have, by baptism, professed
to bid adieu to your former life, τοῖς κάτω, τῷ Koop,”
&c. See the note on 2, 11 and 12. The words ἡ gw
- Θεώ admit of more than one sense. Some recent
Commentators, as Heinr., take ἡ ϑωὴ to mean ““ your
former life now laid aside by spiritual death, the su-
perstition and immorality connected with it, and the
worldly advantages to be expected from it.” But
this is harsh, and unsuitable to the context. The true
interpretation seems to be that of Theophyl. (from
Chrys.) : πάλιν, ἡ ϑωὴ ὑμῶν ἄνω" ὥστε kal τὰ ἄνω Ppo-
νεῖτε' Φιλονεικεῖ γὰρ δεῖξαι αὐτοὺς καθημένους, ἄνω, καὶ
ἄλλην ξώντας ϑωὴν, τὴν ἐν τῷ Θεῴ, τὴν μὴ φαινομένην"
Μὴ φαίνεται ὁ Χριστὸς" οὕτως οὐδὲ ἡ ϑωὴ ὑμῶν φαίνεται"
Τί οὖν ϑητεῖτε τὰ φαινόμενα ; Ταῦτα δὲ προκατασκευά-
Set, ἵνα εὐθὺς ἐμπέσῃ εἰς τὸν ἠθικὸν λόγον. And Theo-

* Of the Classical citations in είβ, the most apposite are the
following. Heliodor. 7, 23. ὁρῶ yap πῶς κἀκείνην ἄνω καὶ μέγα
φρονοῦσαν. Plato de Rep. 7. οὔτε μαθεῖν ἂν πω φήμι αὐτὸν, ἐπιο-
τήμην γὰρ οὐδὲ ἔχειν τῶν τοιούτων, οὔτε ἄνω ἀλλὰ κάτω αὐτοῦ βλέ-
πειν τὴν ψυχὴν. Seneca Ep. 79. Sursum vocant illum initia sua:
erit autem illic, etiam antequam hc custodié exsolvatur, cim vitia
disjecerit, purusque ac levis in divinas cogitationes emicuerit. Per-
sius 2,61. O curve in terras anime, et ceelestium inanes, Lucian
Hermot. 5, ὑψηχὰ ἤδη φρονεῖς καὶ ἄνωθεν.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. [II. δὶ

doret: ἐκείνου γὰρ ἀναστάντος πάντες ἡἠγέρθημιεν" ἀλλ᾽
οὐδέπω ὁρῶμεν των πραγμάτων τὴν ἔκβασιν' κέκρυπται
δὲ ἐ ἐν αὐτῷ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀναστάσεως τὸ μυστήριον" ὅταν
τοίνον ἐπιφανῇ τὸ δεύτερον, τηνικαῦτα τευξόμεθα τῆς ἀνασ-
τάσεως, καὶ ἀπολαυσόμεβα τῆς ἀθανάτου ϑωῆς. And so
it is explained by some eminent modern Commenta-
tors, as Rosenm.

Ἔν Θεῴ, “ in the mind of God.” Σὺν Χριστῷ,
after the manner and example of Christ.””_ “ The
life of a Christian (observes Doddr.) is here repre-
sented as an invaluable yewe/, and under a double
security, reserved in heaven, and laid up with Christ
in God; secure, therefore, as the abode of Christ
with the Father, or as the fidelity and immutability
of the Father himself could make it.” This, however,
seems rather ingenious than solid.

4. ὅταν 6 Χοιστὸς---δόξη, “Βα when Christ, who
is our life (i. 6. the author of it, Joh. 11, 25.), shall
appear, i.e. at his second advent, as Judge, then
shall ye appear with him in glory, i. e. happiness.”
Theophyl. (from Chrys.) makes the following in-
ference: Ὥστε ἐκείνην δητεῖτε τὴν ἡμέραν, μὴ ταύτην"
πρὸς ἐκείνην ῥωὴν σπεύδετε' τότε “γὰρ ἡ ἀληθινὴ ϑωὴ ὑ ὑμῶν
Φανερούται" ἡ γὰρ YW, θάνατος, ὅ ὅτι καὶ διὰ φθορᾶς συνίς-
Taras, τῆς ῥοῆς καὶ ἀποῤῥοῆς.. Μὴ τιμὰς ἐνταύθα ϑητεῖτε
καὶ δόξας ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἡ δόξα ὑμῶν. He then subjoins a
fine comparison derived from the pearl oyster.

5. νεκοώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆ»,
“ mortify therefore, and render as dead (so far as sin
is concerned), your earthly members.” Τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς. “* which are used for the purposes of this life.”
Theophyl. explains: τὰ σωματικὰ μέλη. Nexgody isa
strong expression, the force of which is too much
diluted by the exposition of some recent Interpreters,
debilitare. It signifies, ' “ deprive of all force, obtain
complete mastery over.” From what follows, how-
ever, it should seem that Theophyl. has rightly
remarked, that by the ra μέλη ἐπὶ τῆς vis: are meant
the τὰ διὰ τῶν μελών τοῦ σώματος ἐπιτελούμενα ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς ἁμαρτήματα. And so Theodoret. ‘Thus the

E2

52 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.

μέλη are put improprie for the lusts worked in those
members. ‘The apparent inconsistency between the
νεκρώσατε and the expression elsewhere used by the
Apostle, συνετάφητε τῷ Χοιστῷ, Theophyl. thus re-
moves: ὅτι ἡ μὲν προτέρα νέκρωσις τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἦν
δώρον, ἀποκτιννύσα τῆν ἐν ἡμίν ᾿προγεγονυῖον ἁμαρτίαν" ἡ
δὲ νῦν ὑποτιθεμένη νέκρωσις" τῆς ἡμετέρας προαιρέσεως,
τὰς μετὰ τὺ βάπτισμα ἁμαρτίας ἀφανίξουσα, μᾶλλον de
μηδὲ ἀναξῆσαι ἐώσα ὅλως, διὰ τοῦ θανατοῦν τὸ φρόνημα
τῆς σαρκὸὺς.

The terms πορνείαν and ἀκαθαρσίαν, require no ex-
planation. The πάθος denotes venereal lust of the
most flagitious sort ; as we may infer from Rom. 1,
26., παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, With which the
Apostie prefaces a description of vices the most
abominable. Hence the Latin Pathicus. Here, too,
Classical examples are referred to by Schleus. On
the terms in question, Theophyl. remarks: Παρῆκεν
ἰδικῶς εἰπεῖν ἃ οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν καλόν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀκαθαρσίας
καὶ τοῦ πάθους πάντα ἐνέφηνε τὰ τῶν αἰχρών μίξεων
εἴδη.

5. ἐπιθυμίαν κακὴν. This is illustrated from 1
Thess. 4, 5., μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας. ᾿Ἐπιθυμία is, like
almost all words of this kind, properly a vox mediz
significationis. So Midrasch Cohel: concupiscentia
bona subjugavit concupiscentiam malam. See also
Theophyl., who cites Dan. 9, 23. On the τὴν πλεονε-
ξίαν---εἰδωλολατρεία, see the note on Eph. 5, 5.

7. ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατε πότε, ὅτε ἐφῆτε ἐν
αὐτοῖς, “in which (vices) ye also once (more or less)
walked, were habituated to, when ye lived among
them,” i. e. the children of disobedience, the Hea-
thens. Such is the explanation given by Rosenm.,
Doddr., and Mackn. The ἐφῆτε ἐ» αὐτοῖς is, how-
ever, more usually, and perhaps more rightly,
referred to the & Certainly this is supported by the
Classical examples adduced by the Philologists. See
Wolf and Wets. ‘Thus τοί. explains: “ when ye
were moved by such affections and passions.” It is
therefore no tautology, as Mackn. objected. Here

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 53

may be compared a very similar passage in 1 Cor.
6, 11. |

8. νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, * But now
that you are become Christians, put ye away them
411. The καὶ signifies vicissim. Under the τὰ
πάντα much meaning is comprehended ; i.e. all the
vices above mentioned, and also anger, &c. Here,
ὀργὴ and θυμὸς are joined, as at Rom. 2, 8., Eph. 4,
31., where see the notes. Κακίαν. See Eph. 4, 31.,
and the note there. Βλασφημία and αἰσχρολογία are
placed together as being vices nearly allied; the
former, consisting in injurious and calumnious
speaking; the latter, in filthy, lewd, and immodest
discourse. ‘The works ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν, are
added, to strengthen the sense. It, however, seems
a blending of two phrases, “ Jay aside filthy conver-
sation, and let it not come out of your mouth.” The
latter, occurs in Ephes. 4, 29. where see the note.

9. μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους ---αὐτοῦ. See the note
on Ephes. 4, 2—24., to which I add the following
citation. Pindar. Pyth. 4., 177., ἐχθίστοισι μὴ ψεύδεσι
καταμιαίναις, 1. 6. καταμιαίνης τὴν γένναν.

9. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸ παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον. I would
compare Pyrrh. ἃρ. Diog. Laert. 2, 66., ὡς χάλεπον
εἴη ἐκδύναι ἄνθρωπον (where I would read), τὸν
ἄνθρωπον.

10. καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον----κτίσαντος αὐτὸν, ““ and
have put on the new man, who is renewed and
reformed unto a knowledge like unto His knowledge
who created him,” i. 6. made him:a Christian such as
he is. Now, this κτίσις is effected not merely by
baptism, and a moral lite (as ‘lkeophy!. says), nor by
the doctrine of Christ only (as Rosenm.), but by
both these, nay, also by other methods, united with
the influence of the Holy Spirit, to dilate on which
would be here out of place.

Wets. cites Philo. 15, 45., ἡ δ᾽ εἰκὼν λέλεκται κατὰ
τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμόνα νοῦν.

11. ὅπου οὐκ ἔνι Ελλην---ἐλεύθερος. The ὅπου sig-
nifies, ““1η which new creation or regeneration.”

54 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.

The οὐκ ἔνι has much sense; q. d. “ there is no
enquiry whether any one be Greek or Jew.” See a
very similar passage in Gal. 3, 28., and the note.
The distribution into Jews and Greeks, circum-
cision and uncircumcision, is frequent. On the
terms BapBapos, Σκύθης, Heinr. observes, that they
are not opposites, like the former; otherwise we
should have had Βαρβ. καὶ Ρωμάιος; but there
is akind of climax; q. d. barbarous nations, nay,
that which is most so, Scythia. The copious Classi-
cal illustrations of the Commentators show that
Scythian was a proverbial term for barbarian. It is
not, however, very necessary to adduce any of them:
but I shall lay before my readers a passage which
I found in Max. Tyr. Diss. 17, 4., οὐδὲ τὸν ἸΣκύθη οὐδὲ
τὸν Ἑλληνα οὐδὲ τὸν Περσὴν, ἢ τὸν ὙὝπερβόφειον. And,
a little further on, ταῦτα δὲ ὁ Ἕλλην λέγει, καὶ ὁ βάρ-
βαρος, ὃ ἠπειρώτης καὶ ὁ θαλάττιος καὶ ὃ σόφος καὶ ὃ
ἄσοφος.

11. ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσι Χριστός. ‘These
words have the same sense as those at 1 Cor. 15, 28.,
where see the note.

12. ἐνδύσασθε οὖν----οἰκτιομών, ‘ Having, then, these
glorious hopes on an equal footing with the elect
people of God, not only detest and avoid the vices
just mentioned, but cultivate those virtues which
especially become those to whom God hath shewn
such mercy and loving kindness, namely, com-
passion,” &c. Such I conceive to be the true con-
nection of the passage with the preceding.

The terms ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι
(as at Hebr. 3, 1., and 1 Pet. 2, 9.), each suggest
motives for the exercise of the virtues in question,
and they are here accumulated with all the charac-
teristic warm-heartedness of the Apostle. Indeed,
virtues like these, were especially necessary in a
society formed of such discordant materials as that
of Colossze. Hence the earnestness of the Apostle’s
injunctions.

The metaphor in ἐνδύσασθε σπλάγχνα is not unire-
quent. See Rom. 13, 12., and Eph. 6, 11., and the

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. II. 55

notes there. ‘The termimports, * habitual study of,
and diligence in, any thing.” See Kypke, who cites
Themist. Or. 24., ἐπειδήπερ ἀρετὴν ἀντὶ ἱματίων ἠμφί-
ecto. Athenzeus 565., βουλόμενοι ἐνδύεσθαι αὐτὴν
αὐταρκείαν. And so Berachoth, fol. 16, 2. (cited by
Wets.), Induas te misericordia tua, et cooperias te
potentia tua, et circumvolvas te bonitate tua, et cir-
cumcingas te miseratione.

The terms ἐκλεκτοὶ, on Ἢ ἅγιοι, and σπλάγχ-

va, have been before explaing@g; as also the others.

13. See the note on Eph. 4, 2 & 32.

14. See the note onthe parallel passage of Eph. 4,
3. ᾿Επὶ πᾶσι τούτοις, * above all these things.” So in
the passage of Eph. One may also compare Lucian
3, 142, 44. et. sq.

15. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις
ὑμών, “And (then) the peace of God,” &c. Several
MSS., Versions, and Fathers, have τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
which is approved by many Critics, and received by
Griesbach ; though on what grounds it is difficult to
say: for critical reasons are here very uncertain ;
and doctrinal ones are of little use; since either
reading yields a good sense. Yet Θεοῦ appears to be
preferable, and is defended by a similar passage of
Phil. 4, 7.; though the Critics pretend that this
reading was introduced from thence; which is more
than I can believe would take place in nearly all the
MSS. See the note on that passage.

In the interpretation of βραβευέτω it is not
necessary to dwell on the primary sense of the term;
for though it properly signifies to exercise the office
of judge and arbitrator, yet it came to mean simply
moderari ; as in Polyb. ap. Raphel: ἽΔπαν τὸ γινόμε-
νον ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν θυμώ μᾶλλον ἢ λογισμῷ βραβέυεται,
and in some passages cited by Elsner. The sense
then, is: ‘let it be the rule of your feelings and
actions.” ‘Thus it differs little from the φρουρήσει in
the parallel passage of Philippians. ‘The words are
thus explained by Theophyl.: Αὕτη οὖν βραβευέτω ἐν
ὑμῖν, μὴ ὁ θυμὸς, wy ἡ Diroverica, px) ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη εἰρήνη"

56 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IIT.

ἐκείνη γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ἀμύνασθαι γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ ἀντιδρᾷν'
ἀλλ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἡ βεβαία, ἡ ἀδιάλυτος, ἡ διὰ μηδὲν κοσ-
μικὸν ἀγαθὸν γινομένη, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς
διὰ τι ἐγένετο.

15. εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε, “ unto which (peace) also
ye were called,” i. e. in becoming Christians, and
being initiated into his religion, who preached
peace on earth. Besides, as Theophyl. observes,
“when Christ called to peace, he made us one
body; he being the . Why, then, else are we
one body but that, being members of each other, we
should preserve this, and not be separated ?”’

15. ev ἑνὶ σώματι is said by the Commentators to
be for εἰς ἕν σώμα. But we must also subaud εἶναι.
Now this, without the study of peace and concord,
would be impracticable. See 1 Cor. 10, 17.

15. καὶ εὐχάριστοι γίνεσθε. Some antients (as
Hilary), and many moderns (as Erasm., Vatab., and
Wolf, and indeed most recent Commentators) render
the edyap. amiable, or mild and gentle. Of this signifi-
cation they adduce Classical examples in abundance;
and reasons why that interpretation might be received
are not wanting. Others may be seen in Schl. Lex.
But, after all, I dare not venture to abandon the com-
mon one, supported as it is by so consummate a judge
of Greek phraseology as Chrysost., and since it is
adopted by the other Greek Commentators, and not
only by most modern Commentators, but some very
eminent Critics, as Grot., Casaub., and recently
Heinrichs. Nor does the term signify (as Wolf
would have us think) gratitude to men, but gratitude
and thankfulness to God, for having called us unto
such blessings, as members of his Church. This
sense is so natural, and so agreeable to what follows
(as εὐχαριστοῦντες), that we may overlook the superi-
ority, in point of Classical authority, which the other
interpretation can boast.

16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐν πάση
σοφίᾳ. It is observed, by Theophyl.: δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν
ὁδὸν Or ἧς εὐχάριστοι ἐσόμεθα. The connection seems

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 57

to be: “ And let this gratitude be evinced (among
other ways) by often exercising yourselves on the
glories of redemption.” In determining the exact
sense, much depends upon the force to be assigned
to ἐνοικ. Many Commentators, as Rosenm., ex-
p:ain: “ Let the doctrine of Christ be frequently
and copiously treated of in your society. For (he
adds) the doctrine of Christ dwells in such a society,
when it is so copiously treated of at all fit times and
places that no one want an opportunity of learning.”
This indeed is very agreeable to what follows; but is
scarcely to be elicited from évox. I therefore prefer
the interpretation of some antient and many
moderns, namely: ‘ Let the doctrine of Christ, and
the truths of the Gospel, be deeply seated in your
hearts, and never depart from it, but be exercised as
occasion may serve.” Schoettg. compares Tanchu-
ma, fol. 24, 3. Lex sedem figat in medio ipsorum.
And Mechilta, fol. 19, 1. Lex perfecta sit inter
Ipsos.

16. πλουσίως, penitus. “Ev πάσῃ σοφίᾳ is, by some
recent Commentators, construed with διδάσκοντες.
But the more natural, as well as usual construction,
is with the former words. See also Col. 1, 9. and
Eph. 1, 8. On the terms here used it is not neces-
sary to press, nor take σοφίᾳ for ἀρέτῃ as is done by
Theophyl. We must take ἐν for σὺν, and bear in
mind (with Grot. and Heinr.) that the Gospel is ac-
companied. with true wisdom (1 Cor. 1, 30. ἃ 2, 6.
Eph. 1, 8.), and whosoever is occupied with it is
exercised in wisdom.

Διδάσκοντες is said to be for διδάσκουσι. Others
subaud ἐστι, and take διδάσκοντες for the Imperative
διδάσκετε. ‘The former mode is preferable: and yet
it may be more simple to regard διδάσκ. as a nomina-
tivus pendens. ‘The Apostle seems to intend here to
represent the natural effect of this ἐνοικ. πλουσίως.
For as ‘‘ out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh,” so a mind thus filled, and fervently exer-
cised will, like a full fountain, overflow in praises

38° COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.’

and thanks toGod. Such is, I think, the scope of the
words following, on whose sense I have especially
treated at the parallel passage of Eph. 5,19 & 20.
But I would here add one or two observations. Our
use of the Psalms of David, in preference to hymns
of human composition, does not rest on any positive
command of Scripture, but only on what may be in-
ferred from 1 Cor. 14, 27 ἃ 40. Yet, without sub-
ordination, how could it be decided what was ac-
cording to order, decency, and edification? Power
must be vested somewhere ; and where so well as in
one spiritual superior? In many respects the pri-
mitive mode of worship may be, but in not a few it
ought not to be, a model for ours;* and as the
Deity adapts both the ordinary and extraordinary
dispensations of his Providence to the actual circum-
stances of the moral world in different ages and
countries, so ought we to imitate that wisdom of the
Deity. ‘The extraordinary and miraculous gifts with
which even the Laity were then endowed, made it
not improper that every one should have liberty of
speaking for the edification of the rest, especially
when no Minister was present. But afterwards, as

* J may here appositely cite a passage from an Episcopal Visita-
tion Sermon of mine, published nearly eleven years ago, p. 27. “ In
pure morals, in an humble disposition of the heart, in gratitude to
God for having sent his Son into the world, in reverence and love
to a crucified Redeemer, the primitive Church is a model for all
succeeding ages, Yet it cannot, I think, be denied, that in the
weightier matters of the law, in the duties of rendering justice and
loving mercy, we have lights before us as clear as had the primitive
Christians ; and we have the additional benefit of numerous and
holy examples which Ecclesiastical history records, and which have
adorned the church of Christ through a long series of ages. Though
in the present altered form of society it would be not less burthen-
some than it seems unnecessary, to observe literally some Apostolic
injunctions ; yet if we cherish a spirit of docility, if we keep in view
the same grand end of teaching men to love God with all their
heart, mind, and strength, to love their neighbour as themselves, to
rest their hopes of salvation, not on their personal merits, but on
the efficacy of that redemption which Christ hath accomplished for
them, surely we direct Christianity to the noblest purposes, and
have no reason to be ashamed as Ministers of God.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. d9

those extraordinary gifts were gradually withdrawn
from the Laity, such a liberty would have been
abused to licentiousness: therefore the authority of
the Clergy was (most beneficially for the whole com-
munity) increased, and on that authority, and the
decisions of the universal Church, it was determined
that none but the Psalms of David should be used
in public worship. It cannot, I think, be proved
from the New Testament that any uninspired hymns
were used in the public service of the primitive
Christians; which is the point on which the contro-
versy with the Dissenters hinges.

16. ἐν χάριτι ἄδοντες. This is susceptible of more
than one mode of interpretation. Some, as Hein-
richs, takes it to mean animo grato. But that sense
can hardly be admitted. Others, as Grot. and Ro-
senm. (with more probability), take it to be equiva-
lent to JN χαριεντώς, amabiliter, jucunde. But this
is somewhat frigid. Zanch and Gomar understand it
of “ the delight and profit of the hearers.” So Theo-
phyl.: μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς πνευματικῆς, as opposed to the pro-
Jane songs of the Heathens. And this mode of in-
terpretation seems to deserve the preference.

Ἔν καρδίαις is usually explained ex animo, i.e.
not with the voice only, but with the heart. That,
however, would require the singular. It should seem
that this is closely connected with the preceding.
The sense appears to be: “ with spiritual and heart-
felt joy.” It may, however, with some antients,
and, of the moderns, Dr. Mackn., be understood of
the spiritual gifts.

17. καὶ πᾶν 6,71—Kupiov ᾿Ιησοῦ. On account of
the πάντα following, πᾶν is treated by the Commen-
tators as a nominative absolute. It may, however,
be an accusative dependent on κατὰ, quod attinet ad.
Grot. remarks that ποιεῖν, like the Heb. Mwy, though
sometimes applied to εἴπειν, is often, as here, taken in
a laxer sense, so as to comprehend saying as well as
doing: for he who saith, acts.”. The words πᾶν ὅ,τι
are paraphrased by Theophyl.: ἐὰν ἐσθίης, ἐὰν πίνης

60 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.

ἐὰν ἀποδημίῇῆς, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Θεου πρᾶττε, τουτέσ-
τιν, αὐτὸν καλών βοηθὸν, πρότερον αὐτῷ εὐχόμιενος, καὶ
οὕτως ἅπτου τῶν ἔργων.

17. ἐν ὀνόματι ἰζ. Ἶ., “agreeably to [151], and
suitably to his doctrine.” Compare 1 Cor. 10, 31.

17. εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ Θεῴ καὶ Πατρὶ dv αὐτοῦ. The
δι᾽ αὐτοῦ is variously explained. By Rosenm., “ prop-
ter Christum.” Heinr. thinks it is pleonastic. But
this cannot be admitted; and the interpretation
above mentioned is too limited. The expression
must include a reference to the mediatorial office of
Christ. So Theophyl.: ὥσπερ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ὁ Tibs τῷ
Πατρὶ προσήγαγεν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν ἡμών αὐτὸς
προσάγει τῷ ΠΠατρὶ, πάντων τῶν ἀγαθών μεσίτης ἡμάν
ὧν.

18. Having concluded the general, the Apostle
now proceeds to particular precepts.

Ὥς ἀνῆκεν, “Sas it is right and just.” So Eph. 6,
1. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι δίκαιον. Rosenm.) And so Theophyl.
interprets. See Eph. 5, 22, 24. and the note.

19. Compare Eph. 5, 25—fin. ΠΙκραιν. in a pas-
sive or reciprocal sense signifies to carry oneself
bitterly, and is used with πρὸς τινα, or ἐπι τινὶ. (Heinr.)
And sometimes with a dative withouta preposition; as
in Philo 584. (cited by Wets.) ἑτέροις πικρ. and also
2,135. ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπειθοῦσι πικραίνεται. See Kypke and
Loesner. [844 Joseph. 314, 15. ἐδεῖτο συγγνώναι περὶ
τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἡμαρτημένων, καὶ μὴ γενέσθαι πικρὸν αὐτώ.
Soph. Phil. 254. πικρὸς θεοῖς" where the Schol. ex-
plains ἔχθρος. Dionys. Hal. 1, 599, 25. πικρὸν ἄνδρα
καὶ μισόδημον. ‘The word signifies to indulge a spirit
(whether carried into effect or not) of irritability
and exacerbation not easily appeased. From the
παροργίϑετε Of Eph. 6, 4. ; some here confine it to
provocation ; which is, however, far too great a limi-
tation. The extent of sense above detailed is re-
quired by the opposite ἀγαπᾶτε. Much more has
been, and might be said; but as all is trite and un-

necessary, I forbear.
~ 20. τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε. Compare Eph. 6. 1—3.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. 61

and the notes. Rosenm. observes that this general
command is to be restricted by the ἐν κυρίῳ under-
stood, which is expressed at Eph. But this is too
precarious a principle. It is better to say that as ἐν
κυρίῳ occurs in the next clause, so it is zmplied here.
Evapecroy answers to the δίκαιον in Eph.

Q1. μὴ epebigere τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν. Compare Eph. 6,
4. Epebigere answers to the wapopyivere there. See
2 Cor. 9, 2. The verb is often found united with
others expressive of what usually follows irritation,
as λοιδορεῖν, τύπτειν, &c. See the philological Com-
mentators. “Iva μὴ abupwow, “lest they lose all
heart, and despair;” since excessive severity de-
stroys all alacrity of obedience, and induces a de-
sponding, stupid, and hardened spirit. So Wets.:
‘‘ne, spe tam morosis placendi parentibus abjecta,
obedire negligant.” This sense of ἀθυμεῖν is of such
perpetual occurrence in the classical writers (see
Wets.) that one might wonder how any Commen-
tator could have thought of so forced and frigid a
sense as “ ne vobis et ipsi irascantur,”’ a signification
in which the word is used in some passages of the
Old Testament; than which nothing can be more
precarious evidence.

22. οἱ δοῦλοι---τὸν Θεόν. Compare, Eph. 6, 5—8.
It is observable that the Apostle enlarges more on
the duties of masters and servants, and for an ob-
vious reason, since there more is to be done from a
sense of religious duty and accountableness to God.
The Apostle seems to leave the duty of the ser-
vant unlimited at κατὰ ravra, not adding ἐν κυρίῳ, Or
the like ; but he 2m fact limits it by a direct injunction
to the master, at ver. 25. On the sentiment see
Mackn.

I am surprised that Griesb. should not have re-
ceived ὀφθαλμοδουλείᾳ, which is supported by many
excellent MSS. and the parallel passage of Ephes.
The v undoubtedly arose from the w following; as
in a thousand other cases. On the other hand, I
should hesitate, with Greisb., to receive Κύριον for

62 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III.

Θεόν ; since there are not merely critical, and per-
haps fancied reasons (a concurrence of recensions)
to be pleaded in its favour ; whereas Κύριον somewhat
savours of emendation, and seems to have been in-~
troduced to make the antithesis between the human
master and the divine Master the stronger. But
such niceties the Apostle little heeded.

23. καὶ πᾶν 0,74 ἐὰν ποιῆτε. “and whatsoever ye
do,” viz. in your service. “Ex ψυχῆς ex animo. ‘Qs
τῷ κυρίῳ, &c. ‘‘and regard your service as rendered
to the Lord, and not. unto men.”

24, εἰδότες---τῆς κληρονομίας. The Apostle now
states the strongest of all motives for their doing
this; anticipating the objection,—what shall we
gainfrom our masters by such fidelity and diligence?
little or nought. To which the answer is: “ That
may be; but from the Lord ye will receive τὴν
ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας," Where the Commentators
remark, the genitive is exegetical, i. e. “ which con-
sists in inheritance (in heaven). See ὦ, 17. and
Rom. 8, 17.

Q5. 6 δὲ ἀδικῶν κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε. In the interpre-
tation of this verse the Commentators are divided in
opinion as to what the ἀδικῶν is to be referred. Some
say, to the servant; others, to the master. Others
make it general. (See Doddr.) But the last method
can by no means be admitted. Of the two first the
former is supported by the context, and seems pre-
ferable. Yet in the προσωποληψία it is (1 think)
hinted that if the master do wrong, he shall receive
punishment for it. So Theophyl.: ἀλλ᾽ οὖν καὶ οἱ
δεσπόται ὑποδεχέσθωσαν τοῦτο Kal ὡς αὐτοῖς ἁρμιόβον.
See also Theodoret. In this we may observe great
delicacy; and the former is particularly mentioned, be-
cause, as Heinr. remarks, ‘‘ mean persons often think
they ought to be spared, because of their poverty
and ignorance; which is here expressly denied,
since God no more spares bad servants than bad
masters.”

The expression Kop. 6 70x, has been explained at

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. III. IV. 63

Eph. 6, 8. and 2 Cor. 5,10. ‘The term κομ. is used
of evil as well as good. See Levit. 2,17. Mackn.
has of all our English Commentators best seen the
sense. On προσωποληψία see Ephes. 6, 9. Gal. 2, 6.
and James 2, 1.

CHAP. IV.

Ver. 1. οἱ Κύριοι---παρέχεσθε. Compare Eph. 6,
9. The Apostle here expressly states (what at 3,
25. he only hinted at), the corresponding duty of
masters to servants. ‘The οἱ has here (as in some
other phrases) the force of the pronoun personal.
Παρέχεσθε, preestate, yield in return. So a Lexico-
grapher ap. Wets. ἰθυντήριον τὸ κανονίϑον καὶ ἰσότητα
παρέχον. The τὸ δίκαιον and τὴν ἰσότητα are said to
besynonymous. Yet ἃ distinction might be made ;*
though it is not necessary, since the two terms are
often so united, by a kind of popular idiom; as we
say, “what is jusé and right.” Of the passage cited by
Wets. the most apposite are the following: Thucyd.
2, 44. οὐ γὰρ οἷοντε ἴσον τὸ ἢ δίκαιον βουλεύεσθαι. Epis-
tola Philippi, πως ἐστι τοῦτ᾽ ἴσον ἢ δίκαιον ; Demosth.
ἴση καὶ δικαία εἰρήνη.

What is meant by the τὸ δικ. καὶ τὴν ioor. magéy. (with
which compare, “40. as you would be done by,” and
“ with the same mete that ye measure it shall be mea-
sured to you again,”) is very obvious; and the force of
this popular phrase was too well understood to make
it necessary for the Apostle to add any thing expla-
natory of its sense. Heinr. cannot conceive why
the Apostle should be so brief on the reciprocal duty
of masters. But it seems that the phrase suggests
all that was necessary (see the Commentators) ; and
it requires no Qidipus to see why the Apostle

* Thus Grot., after observing that there is a jus even between

those who are not equals, says, that the δικ, answers to the Hebr.
ΡΥ, the igor, to wo.

64 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV.

should be brief and delicate on this head, considering
that slaves formed so very considerable a part of
the population, in some places far exceeding the free
persons, as in our West India islands.

2—6, The Apostle now subjoins some more ge-
neral precepts, on praying (which correspond to Eph.
6, 18. sq.), and a wise and prudent regulation of our
lives, answering to Eph. 5, 15. sq. (Heinr.)

Here, all Commentators remark, ch. 4. ought to
have commenced.

Προσκαρτερεῖν signifies to assiduously persevere in
any thing, and is used of prayer in Acts 1, 14 & 46.
6,4. Compare Rom. 12, 12. 18, 6. The phrase
yeny. ἐν αὐτῇ, Which denotes watchful diligence in
or about any thing, is added, to strengthen the sense.
So 1 Pet. 4, 7. νήψατε, εἰς τας προσευχὰς.

2. ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. Here ἐν 15 for σὺν ; and εὐχαριστία
signifies thanksgiving. Yor as Davison and Grot.
remark, “ conjungi debet grata exacti temporis (et
acceptorum beneficiorum) memoria cum futuri
postulatione.” It is observed by Theophyl. that that
is true prayer which unites thanks for all the events
which have befallen us, whether prosperous or ad-
verse. ‘No one (says Rosenm.) can neglect the
duty of prayer, who often thinks of the benefits he
has received, and returns thanks to God for them.”

3. προσευχόμιενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν. With prayer the
Apostle conjoins a mention of himself, as at Eph. 6,
15., desires their prayers ; chiefly (as it should seem)
to hint to them the duty of prayer for each other, as
well as for themselves, and how much they ad/ stood
in need of it. On the efficacy of such prayer the
Apostle often treats as at Phil. 1, 19. and Hebr.
13, 19. This passage (Mackn. observes) affords
instruction both to ministers, and to their people:
to ministers, not to despise an assistance which
even an inspired Apostle thought useful to him.
And to the people, to be careful to assist their mi-
nisters with an help which in the end will greatly
redound to their own benefit.”

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 65

3. ἀνοίξη ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου. On θύρα in this
Sepa sense see Acts 14, 27. 1 Cor. 16, 9. and
2 Cor. , 12., and the notes. The phrase must sig-
nify ri the Lord would give him an opportunity
(i.e. a further and more favourable opportunity) of
preaching the Gospel of Christ,* namely, by being
set at liberty. That such is the sense (though the
Commentators have not distinctly seen it) is clear
from what follows.

On μυστήριον, as applied to the Gospel, and espe-
cially that most profound part of it, the calling of
the Gentiles, I have before treated. See 1, 26. and
elsewhere.

4, ἵνα φανερώσω airs, ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι. Pav. has
the sense of declare, teach; as in Rom. 1,19. But
it is hére appropriate to the μυστήριον. The words
ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι are susceptible of more than one
meaning. Rosenm. renders it, ‘ suitably to my
office :” and Davison and Gomar, optimo modo, vere,
constanter, prudenter. But this cannot be the sense.
Preferable is the exposition of Grot.: ‘* non tantum
ut magnum mihi det Deus auditorium, sed et forti-
tudinem animi, et eloquendi copiam.” And he re-
fers to 1 Cor. 9, 16. It should, however, seem that
the Apostle is alluding to that liberty which would
give him an oppor tunity of preaching the Gospel in
such a way as he was bound to do, being Apostle of
the Gentiles, and chiefly by having the ,παῤῥησία.
Theophyl. well explains thus: ἵνα παῤῥησίαν μοι δῷ,
οὐχ ὅπως ἀπαλλαγώ τῶν δεσμών, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως λαλήσω τὸ
μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι" τουτέστι, μὴ
μετὰ ὑποστολῆς, ἀλλ᾽ εὐπαῤῥησιάστως. Πώς δὲ dede-
μένος ἑτέρους. παρακάλει καὶ ἄξιοι λαβεῖν ὃ ὃ εἶχεν;

5. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. By the τοὺς
ἔξω are plainly meant “all who are not of the fold of

* Wets. here compares Pind. Olymp. 6. χρὴ τοίνυν πύλας ὕμνων
ἀναπίπταμεν αὐταῖς" and Clem. Strom. 6. οὐδὲ γάρ ῥᾷστον ἔπεων
πύλας ἐξευρεῖν. And 50 Οἷς. Ep. 13, 10. (cited by Heinr.) amicitia
fores aperiuntur. ς

VOL. VIII. Ε

66 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV.

Christ,” whether Jews, or Heathens. See 1 Cor. 12,
13. The scope of the admonition, taken in connec-
tion with what precedes, seems to be to enjoin the
exercise of prudence in avoiding whatever may give
unnecessary offence. On the τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραξ. I
have copiously treated at Eph. 5,16. But the in-
terpretation which I have there adopted will (I grant)
not be suitable to the present passage, which seems
rather to require that of Grot., Hamm., and Whitby
on that passage. See, however, Chrys. and Theo-

6. The Apostle seems here to mean to give them
an admonition as to the mode in which any conver-
sation with the Heathens should be maintained.
Their discourse, he says, is to be ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι.
ἠρτυμιένος, on which words Commentators are by no
means agreed. Many uuderstand χάριτι of divine
grace. But that would here seem harsh. The an-
tients interpret ἐν χάριτι by ἐπίχαρις. And so the
most judicious moderns, courteous, agreeable, not
morose and melancholy. But on ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος they
are divided in opinion. Most antients take it of
spiritual wisdom. ‘Theophyl. paraphrases thus:
ἐχέτω μὲν χαριεντισμὸν ὃ λόγος ὑμῶν" πλὴν μὴ εἰς
ἀδιαφορίαν ἐκπιπτέτω καὶ ἔκλυσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστω καὶ
στύφων' τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ἅλας δηλοῖ" μήτε πέρα τοῦ μέτρου
ἐπίχαρις ἔσο, μήτε αὖ αὐστηρός. But, however agree-.
able to the intention of the Apostle, I see not how
such a sense can be elicited from the words. It is
evident that the Apostle is here speaking of moral
qualities, prudence and discretion, not religious
ones. Considering, then, the context, I agree with
those eminent moderns, who interpret the ἅλιτι
ἠρτυμένος of that prudence and discretion which
regards place, time, and persons. Yet there may be,
too, an allusion to that kind of neatness of phraseo-
logy which the Apostle deemed it not unworthy of
Christians to aim at in their conversation with
Heathens, in order to procure greater respect to the
Gospel. ‘Thus the words following admit of an easy

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. Iv. 67

connexion, where at εἰδέναι must be supplied εἰς τὸ,
or ὥστε; ‘* Thus (i. 6. by the exercise of this pru-
dence and wisdom) will ye be able to know when
and how to give an answer to every Heathen en-
quirer, or objector, and that suitably to his station, or
knowledge ; and by the cultivation of this neatness
of phraseology your answers will be better pointed,
and produce greater effect.”” Such appears to be
the real and complete sense of the passage on which
the notions of the Commentators seem very confused.

7. Now comes the last section of the Epistle,
which corresponds to Eph. 6, 21. (though longer),
and in which (as he usually does at the conclusion
of his Epistles) the Apostle speaks of himself, or
gives a special injunction with respect to certain
persons, concluding with benedictory and valedic-
tory phrases. (Heinr.) Rosenm. observes, that we
may hence infer that Tychicus had been to take a
journey through Phrygia. On ἀγαπητὸς ἀδελφὸς and
σύνδουλος, see supra 1, 7. and Phil. 2, 25.

8. ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ pov, ‘ That he may obtain a
knowledge of your affairs, and make report to me.”
This anxiety of the Apostle to have that knowledge
appears from supra 2, 1. On the sense of παρακαλ.
τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν see supra 2, 2.

9. σὺν ᾿Ονησίμῳ ---ὖς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν. The σὺν ’Ov.
connects with ἔπεμψα. Ὅς ἐ. ἐ. u., ‘ who is de-
scended from your nation, who is your countryman.”
See the Epistle to the Philipp., where Theodoret
says that Onesimus (which, however, was’ a very
common name) was a Phrygian. See also Mackn.
in loc.

9. πάντα ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσι τὰ ὧδε, 1. 6. “ they will tell
you the state of our affairs, both as respects myself
and others.” The τὰ ὧδε, however, may iaclude
every sort of intelligence which would be interesting
to them as Christians. On the similar words of ver.
7. Chrys. and Theophyl. remark on the wisdom of
the Apostle in not inserting every thing in his
Epistle that those whom he addressed would wish to
F2

68 COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV.

know, but leaving the minuter and secular matters
to the letter-bearers. That this was usual in antient
times I have before shewn. And, we may observe,
there was in the case of Paul a delicate propriety,
and a kindness and respect to the letter-bearers, by
leaving them something to say. So Theophyl. re-
marks that the Apostle adopted this course, first,
that his Epistles might not be too long; secondly,
that he who went with them might have something
to relate, and be on that account looked upon more
respectfully ; thirdly, that he might show his good
opinion of such persons, and the regard he had for
them, by this confidence placed in them; and be-
cause he might have some things to communicate,
not so proper for being committed to writing.”

10. ᾿Αρίσταρχος. See Acts 19, 29. 20, 4. 27, 2.
and Philem. 24. And not uncommon name in
Greece, and rendered celebrated by having been
borne by the great Grammarian. On this person
see the instructive note of Mackn.

10. ὁ συναιχμοαλωτός pov. ‘The Commentators here
raise a difficulty, because in this place Aristarchus
is called prisoner; but in Philem. 23, Epaphras.
Yet both might be in bonds; and surely St. Paul
was at liberty to mention in one Epistle the bonds
of the former, and in another the bonds of the latter.
( Heinr.)

10. Μάρκος 6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα. Ανεψιὸς, as we learn
from Phrynichus, was by the Attics applied to any
one’s ἐξάδελφος, 1. 6. either patruelis, or amitinus, or
consobrinus ; for by these three words the one in
question is rendered in the Glosses. Marcus, it may
be observed, had now become more courageous since
what is related in Acts 15, 39. and therefore was
now in great regard with Paul. (Comp. Tim. 4, 11.)
(Rosenm.) See Whitby.

10. περὶ οὗ ἐλάβετε ἐντολάς, “ as to whom (1. 6. Mar-
cus) ye have received my directions.” What these
were we know not. Pearce thinks that évroa. may
import urgent requests. See Acts 17,15. and 2 Tim.

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 69

4,11. Yet Iagree with Mackn., that these were
orders given with Apostolical authority; but whether
verbal (as he thinks), or in writing, 1 would not
venture to determine. Δέξασθε αὐτὸν͵ “ receive him
with the respect due to a faithful minister of Christ.”
So in 3 Joh. 8. it is said of itinerant ministers : Ἡμεῖς
οὖν ὀφείλομεν ἀπολαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους, ἵνα συνεργοὶ
γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθεία.

11. ᾿Ιησοῦς 6 λεγόμινος Ἰοῦστος, ‘* Jesus, who is
called Justus, also saluteth you.” A common name
among the Jews. Grot.and Rosenm. think that the
ὁ λεγόμενος ᾿Ιοῦστος signifies that he was so called by
the Romans. On which custom of adding to the
Jewish name a Roman one similar to it, see Grot. on
Acts 18,9.

11. οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομιῆς, ‘ all of whom are of the
circumcision,” i.e. Jewish Christians. The Apostle
then adds, οὗτοι μόνοι---παρεγορία, where the phraseo-
logy is brief and idiotical, and consequently some-
what obscure. οὗτοι is for οἱ kal. By μόνοι is meant,
as Chrys. and almost all Commentators think, “ of
the Jews alone ;” and perhapsrightly ; at least Luke
and Timothy were then at Rome.

11. συνεργοὶ ε. τ. 8. τ. Θ. can require no explana-
tion. Οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν μοι παηρηγορία. This seems
to be a brief mode of expression for, ** and who have
indeed been such, and a great comfort to me.” Now
they might have been fellow-labourers without being
personally a comfort to the Apostle; which is here
implied. ‘The Jewish Christians in general were too
wedded to prejudice and bigotry to cordially pro-
mote the Apostle’s views, or be any comfort to him;
though they might be, in a certain sense, his fellow-
labourers.

12. ἀσπάξεται ὑμᾶς Exadpas 6 ἐξ ὑμῶν, “ Epaphras
your countryman (see the note supra ver. 9, and
therefore not the same, as some say, with the Epa-
phras mentioned at Philipp.) salutes you.” Πάντοτε
aywviSopevos ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ταῖς προευχαῖς, ““ continually
offering up fervent prayers in your behalf.” See the

7O COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV.

note supra 2, 1. Ἵνα στῆτε τέλειοι καὶ πεπληρωμένοι,
&e. The στῆτε is thought by Heinr. to be equiva-
lent to ἦτε. But there rather seems to be a blend-
ing of two metaphors. ‘The force of στῆτε is the
same as at Eph. 6, 18. καὶ πάντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆ-
ναι" Στῆτε οὖν, &c. See also Philipp. 1, 27 and 28.
Gal. 5, 1. So Theophyl.: ἐπειδὴ δὴ ἔνι τέλειον μὲν
εἶναι, pr ἐστάναι δὲ, ὥσπερ ὅταν τις πάντα μὲν εἰδῇ, μοὴ
ἑσήκοι δὲ βεβαίως, διὰ τοῦτὸ φησιν, ἵνα στῆτε τέλειοι, ἕν
τε τῷ δόγματι δηλαδὴ, καὶ ἐν τῷ βίῳ: On τέλειοι see 1
Cor. 2, 6. and Eph. 4, 13. and the notes. Πεπληρω-
μένοι, * filled and thoroughly prepared with all spiri-
tual gifts and graces and divine aids.” See Schleus.
Lex. on πληρόω: Ἔν παντὶ θελήματι is for εἰς τὸ πᾶν
θέλημα. So Eph. 3, 19. ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλή-
pop τοῦ Θεοῦ. The sense is: ‘ the will of God, and
that only.” For, as Theoph. observes, τοῦτο τὸ πε-
πληρῶσθαι καὶ τὸ τελειῶσθαι.

18. μαρτυρῶ γὰρ αὐτῷ ori ἔχει ϑῆλον. It is strange
that Heinr. and others should think πόνον instead of
ϑῆλον is the true reading; and that Griesb. should
have edited it. The various readings, πόθον, ἄγωνα,
κύπον, and πόνον are all but glosses on ϑῆλον : whereas
had πόνον been the original reading, it is difficult to
see how the rest could have arisen. Besides, the
common reading is confirmed by a kindred passage of
Rom. 10, 2. μαρτυρῶ yap αὐτοῖς ὅτι ϑῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχουσιν.
The phrase ἔχειν ϑῆλον ὑπὲρ τινὸς, signifies to be de-
sirous to promote any one’s interests, accompanied
with exertions to do it. See 2 Cor. 7, 7.

With respect to Laodicea and Hierapolis, they are
both in Phrygia. On the latter, which was in the
vicinity of Loadicea, Wets. has collected many pas-
sages from the Classical writers, especially the Geo-
graphers, to which I would add a very curious one
from an Orator of Procopius Gaz. ap. Villois Anecd.
H.41. πόλις ἐστὶν ἱερὰ, τὸν πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνισ χόντων, πο-
λυάνθρωπος, ἐκ τῆς εὐσεβείας φέρουσα γνώρισμια. καὶ ταὶς
θείαις τελεταῖς τών ἄλλων προβεβλημένη" ὅθεν εἰς ταύτην
φοιτῶσιν ᾿Ινδοὶ, καὶ Πέρσαι, καὶ Φοίνικες, καὶ Σκυθῶν

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 71

γένη, καὶ τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Ελλάδος, Ἰωνία τε πᾶσα" καὶ
ὥσπερ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους κοινήν τις ἂν εἴποι πατρίδα"
αὕτη τῶν ὑδάτων ἐνδείᾳ, μετὰ τῶν οἰκητόρων καὶ τοὺς παν-
ταχόθεν ὄντας ἐλύπει τοσαῦτα γὰρ παρεῖχεν, ὅσα. τῶν
ὄμβρων ἡ τύχη" καὶ ἀντ’ ἄλλου τινὸς, ὑδάτων θησαυροὺς
ἐπεποίηντο,

14. ἀσπάϑεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς. Τί
has been the almost unanimous opinion of Commen-
tators both antient and modern, that this is Luke the
Evangelist, who is from this passage alone, Rosenm.
says, supposed to have beena physician. But this I
should be inclined to doubt: and I can by no means
agree with those who, as Calvin, Heuman, and Ro-
senm., think that if St. Paul had here meant his well
known companion, he would have simply called him
Luke ; as at 4 Tim. 4, 12., from which they infer that
the ἰατρὸς indicates that this was another Luke ; as the
name was not uncommon. But how inclusive is such
an argument it is needless for me to point out. Thus
even Heinr. (sufficiently prone to innovation) admits
that Luke the Evangelist is meant.

Demas, Bengel observes, is the only one sine elo-
gio. There are several such at Rom. 16.

15. Νυμφάν, καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίαν. Grot.
thinks that Νυμῷ. is a contract name for Nymphodo-
rus. Compare 2 Tim. 4, 10. ‘This person had a
church or congregation in his house, of which men-
tion is made at Rom. 16, 5. 1 Cor. 16, 19. and
Philem. 2. where see the notes. From the xa} Grot.
would infer that Nymphas lived not at Laodicea,
but in the vicinity. This, however, seems precari-
ous. (Heinr.)

16. καὶ ὅταν---ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀναγνωθῆ. There has been
some difference of opinion respecting the force of the
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείᾳ. On which it may be sufficient to
refer my readers to the notes of Whitby and Doddr.,
(both being Commentators whom I presume few of
them are without): and I will offer only one or two
remarks.

There is no reason to conclude that the words

te COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV.

refer to a lost Epistle to the Laodiceans; and I am
surprised Doddr. should maintain so precarious, not
to say dangerous, a position as that “all the Epistles
of the Apostles are not preserved, any more than all
the words and actions of our Lord.” ‘The two cases
are quite different; andthe position is not only un-
founded, but (as I said) dangerous. Here we need
only suppose, (with the most eminent Commentators,
down to Heinr.,) that the Epistle in question is that
to the Ephesians, and that that was what is called an
encyclical one. And although this does not admit of
proof, yet it is so highly probable that we may very
well acquiesce in it.

17. καὶ εἴπατε ᾿Αρχίππω, 1. 6. “ say to Archippus
in my name.” This person had discharged the office
of Evangelista sometimes at Ephesus, sometimes
elsewhere. See Philem. 2. He seems to have last
resided, and to have been then resident at Colosse,
and there to have discharged the office of President,
ruling Presbyter, now called κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, Bishop.
(Grot.) Some, as Heinr., think he was now dis-
charging that office in the place of Epaphras. From
the words of the address it has been by most Com-
mentators supposed that he had been inattentive to
the duties of his station, and that they are intended
to convey areproof. But this is so inconsistent with
the commendatory manner in which he is mentioned
by the Apostle to Philemon, that it cannot (I think)
be admitted. Nor is such a conclusion at all neces-
sary. We might as well suppose the admonition to
Timothy at 2 Tim. 1, 6. to ““ stir up the gift of God
in him,” implies reproof for negligence. Such lan-
guage as this is only to be understood as exciting to
renewed activity, for which, considering the then
state of the Colossian Church (beset with false
teachers) there would be especial need.

With respect to the phraseology, it is by many
thought to savour of Hebrew pleonasm. But simi-
lar modes of expression are sometimes found in the
Classical writers. ‘The words may be simply ren-

COLOSSIANS, CHAP. IV. 73

dered: “ Look to* thy office which thou receivedst
at the hands of the Lord, and for the promotion of
his glory.” Thus, we may observe, a Bishop or
Priest may (by the medium of those who conse-
crate him) be said to receive his office from the
Lord, the Head of the Church. So Theophyl.

Of πληροῦν and fungi, joined with words denoting
office, Wets. and Kypke adduce numerous examples,
none of which (as the phrase is so very frequent) need
I select.

18. ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, Hence it is
plain, that all that precedes was written by the hand
of a scribe, and this clausula alone by the hand of the
Apostle. So1 Cor. 16,21. 2 Thess. 3, 17. (Rosenm.)
Yet he thus acknowledges the preceding to his own.
(Heinr.)

18. μνημονεύετε μου τῶν δεσμῶν. Some explain:
“ Be mindful to relieve me while under these bonds.”
But nothing can be less accordant to the spirit of the
Apostle than this. The expression is similar to that
in Hebr. 13, 3.; and the sense (as the best Com-
mentators antient and modern are agreed) is: “ Be
mindful of, feel love for, pray for me, and imitate
the courage with which 1 bear persecution for the
Gospel’s sake.”

* So Arrian Diss. Epict. L.3, ch. 23. (cited by Rosenm.) ἀλλ᾽
ἐκεῖνο μᾶλλον βλέπετε.

71

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. *

CHAP. I.

Of the contents of this Epistle Schoettg. gives the
following plan. 1. Proeme, ch. 1. 2. A commen-
dation for the facility with which they were con-
verted, ch. 2. 8. A commendation for their stead:
fastness in their Christian profession, ch. 3. It is
true the Apostle here and elsewhere introduces such
commendatory matter, for the purpose of both of
making the greater impression on the minds of his
readers, and confirming them the more in their con-
stancy. 4. Practical matter, 4, 5, 12—22. 5. A
treating on the times of future things, 5, 1—11.

VERSE 1. Biaovaves καὶ Tipobecs, Silvanus. A not
unfrequent name among the Romans. This Silvanus
(i. e. the Silas of the Acts,) was Paul’s companion in
his journey through Asia Minor and Greece (see
Acts 15, 22. 16,19. 17, 1 and 10); and also took
Timothy with him when he went into Macedonia.
Both their names are, therefore, united by the Apos-
tle with his own,,as being well known to the Gentile
converts at Thessalonica. (Rosenm.) Grotius thinks
they had relations in Thessalonica. But that is mere
conjecture.

1. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων, ἐν Θεῷ Πατρὶ, x. K.
J. X. Rosenm. here supposes an ellipsis of “ qui
perductus est ad finem:” and he takes in the sense
of per. But this is too arbitrary. The common and

* Or rather, as Markland has fully proved, Thessaloniczans.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 75

best founded opinion is, that there is an ellipsis of
οὔσῃ. But to render it by és, is being too literal and
inartificial. Mackn. interprets it subject to; which
is too arbitrary. ‘The sense seems to be, “ who are
founded in and joined to Christ.” See 1 Joh. 5, 20.
Some antients and moderns, as Grot., think no men-
tion is made of Presbyters and Deacons, because the
congregation as yet consisted of but few. But that
(as Koppe observes) is refuted by the Introductions
of the other Epistles, where he addresses churches
fully constituted without any mention of such.

2,3. εὐχαριστοῦμεν ----ἡμιῶν. ‘The same is expressed
at Rome 1, 8.and 9. Eph. 1, 16. where see the notes.
It is observed by Koppe, that the plural throughout
the Epistle is to be referred to Paul only; though
Timothy and Silvanus are joined in the salutation.
Compare 3,1 and2. The πάντοτε and ἀδιαλείπτως
are to be taken populariter, like our perpetually,
i.e. at every return of prayer. ᾿Αδιολείπτως μνημιο-
νεύοντες ὑμών τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως “as often as we re-
member your work of faith.” The recent Commen-
tators take ἔργου τῆς πίστως for πίστεως. But it ra-
ther has reference to the zeal and diligence which
they had evinced in attaining unto this faith, and
their constancy in persevering in it. So Theophyl.
explains it ἐνστάσεως ὑμῶν τὸ στεῤῥῶς ἴστασαι. And
so Theodoret: τὸ ἐν κινδύνοις βέβαιον. See Joh. 6, 29.
and Phil. 1, 6. Benson thinks it denotes the practice
of all those good works required in consequence of
embracing the Christian faith. But this seems un-
founded.

3. καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, καὶ τῆς ὑπομινῆς τῆς ἐλ-
πίδος. On the exact sense of these words Commen-
tators are not agreed. Koppe avoids the difficulty,
by regarding them as simply put for τῆς ἀγάπης and
τῆς ἐλπίδος. But against this slovenly method of
wrapping up matters I can never cease to protest.
It is only a decent way of shuffling off the difficulty.
Tod κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης is well explained by Schleus.
* ardentissimum mutuz benevolentiz studium.” Of

76 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I.

this (as Theophyl. observes) they had given a proof
in the circumstances narrated at Acts 17. And itis
remarked by Grot., that love is much, but labour is
more. In the present clause the first substantive
stands for an adjective. ‘Thus ὑπομονὴ τῆς ἐλπίδος sig-
nifies, “ your long and patient enduring hope,” spez
certce et inconcusse, as Schleus. explains. We shall
see the significance and propriety of this expression,
when we consider the many temptations they under-
went to abandon the faith, both from Jews and
Gentiles.

3. τοῦ Kugiov, Vorst. observes, denotes partly the
efficient cause; partly the object of the preceding
virtues.

3. ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἡμῶν. This for-
mula must be referred to the πίστεως, ἀγάπης, and
ἐλπίδος, and (as some antients and most moderns
think) is meant (by a Hebraism taken from ™ mab)
to denote that they are sincere and zealous. Rosenm.
refers to Vorst. de Hebr. p. 399 and 463. Fisch.

4. εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν
ὑμῶν. ΤῈ 15 strange that many modern Commenta-
tors (as Eras. and Zeger) should refer the εἰδότες to
the Thessalonians, as if they knew that they were
elected of God: which is supposing a harsh anaco-
luthon very needlessly : whereas if it be referred (as
the context requires) to Paul (since the participle is
used both before and after), all is natural and
straight forward. So all the antients, and most of
the moderns, even some Calvinists, as Doddr. See
the note on 3,5. ‘The election spoken of (says
Whitby) is the election to be a church.” (See his
note.) As to the notion of absolute election of indi-
viduals, it is refuted by 3, 5. 5, 14. 2 Thess. 3,11.
And so the antients took the words. See Chrysost.,
Theophyl., and Gicumen.

On the construction Commentators are not quite
agreed. Some join ὑπὸ rod Θεοῦ with the preceding ;
others, with the following. The former seems. pre-

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. Vi

ferable, and is not only supported by the authority of
some antient Versions and Commentators, but is
adopted by the best moderns. Propriety of lan-
guage, too, seems to require this: for otherwise (as
Benson says) we should have had τῶν ὑπὸ Θεοῦ ἐκλο-
γὴν ὑμῶν. A yet stronger argument is deduced from
2 Thess. 2, 15. and Col. 3, 12.

5. ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ---- πληροφορίᾳ moray. ‘The
terms here employed are very strong, and ought not
to have been lowered and explained away, as they
are done by most recent Commentators, whose in-
terpretation indeed yields a tolerable sense,* but
with a far less natural construction, and with vio-
lence to the plain and obvious sense of the passage,
which had been distinctly seen by the antients, and
was admitted by the moderns up to the last half
century.

5. τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν, “our preaching of the Gos-
pel.” ᾿Εγενήθη, “ was not affected.” Eis ὑμᾶς, for
ὑμῖν: ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει, καὶ ἐν Π]Ίνευμ. ey. These
three particulars are opposed to the bare λόγῳ unac-
companied with any thing more. The δυνάμει has
reference (as the best Commentators are agreed) to
ministry worked by Paul; and the πν. ey. (I should
conceive) to the spiritual gifts which were imparted
by him to some members of the Thessalonian Church;
as at Corinth and Galatia. So Theoph., who ex-
plains: ‘‘ from this it is plain that ye are elect, from
God’s glorifying the preaching of the word among
you. lor we did not simply preach, but there were
also signs of God’s approving that faith.” See also
Benson. Some take δυνάμει in conjunction with zy.
ay. to denote the supernatural power of Paul’s
preaching, and its efficacy on the heart. But this
may be included in the preceding. -

5. ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ. On the sense of this

. * Thus Rosenm. renders: ‘ Nam doctrinam nostram persuasi-
mus vobis non tantum institutione, sed etiam demonstratione insig-
nis vis divine, et multis firmissimis argumentis.”

78 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I.

clause Commentators are not agreed. Some, as
Grot., would unite it with the preceding ἐν πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ, supposing an hendiadis. But this seems paring
down the sense. Others refer it to Paul’s παρῥησία.
But this cannot be tolerated. It must be referred
to the Thessalonians ; and I think (with Theophyl.,
Cicumen., Hesych., and, of the moderns, Zanch,
Benson, Rosenm., and Schleus.), that it is equivalent
to βεβαιώτης ; and that σὺν is understood ; q.d. ““ it
was accompanied with certain assurance of the truth
of the Gospel.” The force of the metaphor is de-
rived from a ship under full sail, and may therefore
well express full assurance and complete conviction.
So Heb. 6, 11. πληροῷ. τῆς ἐλπίδος: and 10, 22.
ὁ πληροῷ. τῆς πίστεως.

5. καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν. ‘The scope
of this clause, which is indistinct, has not been well
perceived by the Commentators. The Apostle (I
conceive) meant to advert to another evidence of the
truth of the Gospel, namely, from the conduct of the
preacher of it. The καθὼς may be rendered espe-
cially as. Oios here, as almost always, is used ina
good sense. It is well explained by Theophyl.: πῶς
ἀνεστράφημεν. The Apostle alludes to purity, dis-
interestedness (even working with his hands, 2, 9.),
and other moral virtues by which his sincerity and
the truth of the Gospel was proved. What is here
only hinted at in οἷον éyev., is fully expressed infra 2,
10. ὑμεῖς μαρτύρες ὡς ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμεμπτῶς
ὑμῖν ἐγενήθημεν. In ἐν ὑμῖν δι’ ὑμᾶς Pisc. thinks there
isa polyptoton. But it is rather (I conceive) ἃ paro-
nomasia. The force of δ ὑμᾶς (which is not well
discerned by the Commentators) is, ‘‘ for your sakes,
for your good, not our own private interest.”
Mackn. well contrasts this disinterestedness with the
covetousness and profligacy of the philosophers of
that age.

6. καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ Kupiov.
There is here plainly an ellipsis of some clause,
which must be supplied, to indicate the connection.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, I. 79

Benson offers the following: “ (And we can bear
witness to your amiable behaviour) for,” &c. Mack.:
« And, being exceedingly struck with our miracles
and virtues, ye became,” &c. I would propose
(partly from Menoch.) the following: ‘* (Nor was
our labour fruitless, or our example set you in vain)
for ye were imitators,” &c. The force of the μιμηταὶ
is, by most Commentators, confined to the bearing
afflictions, as Jesus Christ and Paul had done. But
I cannot help thinking, with Zanch, Grot., and
Doddr., that a general imitation of Christ and the
Apostle is meant, (as in 1 Cor. 4, 16. & 11, 1.),
though consisting chiefly in that stedfast faith and
endurance of persecution for the truth’s sake, which
is the stamp of all other Christian virtues; 4. d. “ ye
were imitators of me and the Lord in the general
holiness of your lives, and especially in that patient
endurance of persecution, to which, after having re-
ceived the word, ye were exposed.” See infra 2, 14.

The clause δεξάμενοι----ἁγίου, from the flexibility of
the phraseology, admits of two or three renderings,
though with no great diversity of sense. Much de-
pends upon the mode in which δεξάμενοι is to be
taken. IPfit be taken (with Pisc.) for ἅτε ἐδέξασθε,
‘* inasmuch as ye received,” it will supply a proof of
their being true imitators of Christ. But if it be
taken (with most Commentators, antient and mo-
dern) for “ having received the Gospel,” the scope
will be somewhat different ; and the phrases ἐν θλίψει
πολλῇ and μετὰ χαρᾶς [Πνεύματος ay. must be intro-
duced with an although and a yet; which is harsh
(see Doddr. and Mackn.); q.d. having embraced
the Gospel, though it brought on you much afflic-
tion, yet mitigated by the joy of the Holy Ghost.”
The former method seems preferable, and the con-
struction may be thus traced: δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον
μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐν θλίψει πολλῆ. I cannot,
however, agree with some recent Commentators
who render μετὰ χαρᾶς libentissime; as Acts 2, 41.
ἀσμένως ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον. There is, doubtless

80 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 1.

(as the antient and the best modern Commentators
are agreed) an allusion to the joy of the Holy Spirit
which accompanied and rewarded their alacrity in
receiving the word, and their firmness in adhering
to it, and which was (as Benson and Mackn. observe)
an evidence of their election, and a pledge of their
title to a happy immortality.

7. ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπους, ““ Insomuch that ye
became exemplars and models to all the believers in
Macedonia and Achaia.” On tux. see 1 Cor. 10, 6
& 11. Phil. 3, 17. and the notes. Koppe observes
that Macedonia and Achaia were the two provinces
into which Greece was divided when brought under
the Roman yoke, one of which comprehended Ma-
cedonia proper, with Illyricum, Epirus, and Thes-
saly ; the other Greece proper, i.e. antient Greece.

8. ἀφ᾽ ὑμών yap ἐξήχηται---ἐξελήλυθεν, “ For not
only from you sounded forth the word of the Lord
unto Macedonia,” &c. ‘The οὐ μόνον (per hyperbaton)
must (as Grot., Rosenm., and Koppe are agreed) be
united with ἐξήχηται (see Rom. 4, 12. and Heb. 11,
3.), the comma being removed after Κυρίου. It is
remarked by Koppe, that the formulas ἀφ᾽ ὑμών
ἐξήχηται caroyosand πίστις ὑμῶν ἐξελήλυθεν are placed
in opposition. Compare Joel 8, 14. and Sir. 40, 18.

᾿Ἐξήχηται, “ sounded like atrumpet.” So Pollux 1,
118. ἐξήχησε βροντὴ, and Hesych. ἐξήχηται" ἐκηρύχθη.
᾿Αφ᾽ ὑμῶν does not denote (as Storr thought) the
efficient cause ; but it signifies commencing from you.
Nor has the sounding forth any relation (as Koppe
supposes) to the Apostle’s own progress through the
district, which would destroy the propriety and
beauty of the passage ; but the meaning is, that the
truths of the Gospel were disseminated from ‘Thes-
salonica, which, from its dignity as capital of one of
the two provinces of Macedonia, and its extensive
commerce, would have communication with far dis-
tant regions (for that is, by hyperbole, the sense of
ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, and not, as Koppe renders, “" wherever
I go”), and the same intercourse would spread the

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 81

news of the conversion of the Thessalonians far and
wide.

8. καὶ πίστις ὑμών ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ‘ se di-
vulgavit,” “ has been carried.’? Benson has an ex-
cellent note on this going out of the Gospel from any
place, as being the greatest honour it could have.
Compare Ps. 19,4. and Rom. 10, 18. He shows
how highly honoured in that respect was Antioch,
and especially Jerusalem; as had been prophesied.
See Is. 2, 3. and Macc. 4, 2. So St. Paul at 1 Cor.
14, 36. ‘ What, came the word of God out from
you?” i.e. are you the first Church in the world?
Theophyl. paraphrases thus: ἡ περὶ τῆς ὑμῶν φήμη
ἀρετῆς ἐποίησεν ἐξάκουστον γενέσθαι πᾶσι τὸ κήρυγμια, καὶ
πάντων ὑμᾶς παιδευτὰς δειχθῆναι.

9. αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὁποίαν εἴσοδον
ἔχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. By αὐτοὶ Grot. and Rosenm. un-
derstand persons every where. But the nature of
amoyy. seems rather to show that αὐτοὶ must mean
the Fhessalonians who sounded out the word of
God every where. As to the construction, it is the
κατὰ τὸ σημιαινόμιενον. Περὶ ἡμῶν, ““ concerning us.”
Ὅποιαν, qualem, how successful; for that is implied
in ὅποιαν (as often insuch kind of words), and not, as
Rosenm. supposes, in εἴσοδον ; as is clear from 2, 1.,
which is closely connected with this passage; the
words καὶ πώς ---ἐρχομένης being in some degree pa-
renthetical.

9. πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ‘ how promptly.”
(So Theophyl. εὐκόλως, μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς σφοδρότητος)
ye turned from the worship of idols to that of the
true God. ’Emsorp. has here (as Koppe and Rosenm.
observe) a reciprocal force, as at Luke 17, 4. Acts
3,19. And so our verb to ¢urn admits of both an
active and a reciprocal. To turn any one unto God,
or to turn oneself unto, denotes what is called conver-
sion, the abandonment of any religion, and the em-,
bracing of another, or the passing from Atheism to
religion. The words following are exegetical, and
show the intent of this.émiorp., namely (εἰς τὸ) δου-
λεύειν Θεῴ ϑῶντι, 1. 6. to worship and obey, &c. ; for

VOL, VIII. G

82: 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. '

such is the sense of δουλεύειν, derived from the Heb.
Tay, from whence the Latin obedio. ‘The expression
living and true God, as opposed to dumb idols and
fictitious Gods, is of very frequent occurrence both
in the Scriptures and also Josephus and Philo.
Theophyl. observes that this is meant to hint an ad-
monition to a conduct worthy of such a wonderful
conversion ; and (as Benson observes) “ the remind-
ing them of this would be a motive to them to go
on as they had begun.” |

10. καὶ ἀναμένειν----Ἰησοῦν. The ἀναμένειν depends
upon εἰς τὸς Koppe and Rosenm. notice the hyper-
baton for ᾿[ησοῦν, ὅν ἥγειρεν, and the use of ῥύομεν for
ῥυσόμενον. But the former criticism is precarious ;
and the latter unnecessary. It may mean “ who is
to free us.” Ὁργῆς imports punishment ; for wrath
can only be ascribed to God ἀνθρωποπαθώς. See
Benson. As to Koppe, he here, as often, abuses his
knowledge by seeking needless refinements, and
indulging in foolish and dangerous speculations.

No Commentator has sufficiently seen the force of
the εἰς τὸ ἀναμένειν, which seems meant to show the
other fundamental article of Christianity, namely, to
receive Jesus Christ as the Saviour. Now this is ex-
pressed by waiting for him, and expecting his advent
from heaven; which is beautifully put for the re-
ceiving himas the Saviour, obeying his precepts, and
living in the profession of his religion. ‘This, it may
be observed, is here especially appropriate, with re-
ference to the trials and calamities with which they
had had to struggle, and under which “ the patient
waiting for of their Saviour” and deliverer was their
only support. So Gal. 5,5. “we wait for the hope.”
Rom. 8, 19. ““ waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of God.” Rom. 8, 25. ‘‘ we groan, waiting for
the adoption.” 1 Cor. 1, 7. ‘‘ waiting for the coming
of our Lord.’”’ 2 Thess. 3, 5. “ unto the patient
waiting for of Christ.” It is well observed by Theo-
phyl.: ἐπειδὴ τὰ μὲν δεινὰ ἐν χερσὶ, τὰ δὲ χρηστὰ ἐν
ἐλπίσι, μεγάλην αὐτοῖς προσμαρτυρεῖ πίστιν, εἴγε ἀναμιέ-
yours καὶ ἐλπίϑουσι βεβαίως τὰ μέλλοντα.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 83

CHAP. II,

VER. 1. αὐτοὶ γὰρ oldare—yeyover. The connexion
is here not well traced by the Commentators; and
Koppe and Rosenm. recognize none, by taking the
γὰρ as aparticle of transition. But this is precarious
and unnecessary; and the connexion will be clear,
if (as I observed at 1, 9.) the words καὶ πῶς---ἐρχο-
μένης be regarded as in some measure parenthetical.
The yap refers to the ὅποιαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν. And the
sense may be thus expressed: “ (I need scarcely
have said it) for you yourselves know,” &c.

The Hellenism i in οἴδατε τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν ὅτι γέγονεν
for οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ εἴσοδος, &c., is trite. On the sense of
the κενὴ, which, from its flexibility, admits of various
senses, Commentators are not agreed. Many an-
tients interpret it, ‘‘ free of danger and fear.” But
this sense is inapposite. Most moderns, as Grot.
and Hamm., explain it false, lying. But this inter-
pretation is harsh; as is also that of Rosenm. and
Koppe, who take it for μάταιον, and render: “ non
vero honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio ad vos
venimus; Veni ad vos eo consilio et studio ut vobis
prodessem, non ut otiosé inter vos viverem.” If the
connexion above traced be the true one, it must be
taken, with Menoch., Est., and Gomar, in the sense
sine fructu, inutile. And that that is the real con-
nection, and this the sense, I am the more inclined
to believe, since I find the very acute and able
Benson has anticipated all that I have said, and come
to the. same conclusion. He rightly ascribes the
variety of interpretations to the solicitude of Com-
mentators to preserve a connection with what follows,
and from their supposing that the Apostle is there
explaining what he means by his saying our coming
unto you was not in vain.” ‘The meiosis in οὐ κένη is
very obvious. Benson confirms the above interpre-
tation from 1, 5. 2,13 & 14. 3,5. 2 Thess. 3, 1
s. 12, 4. 55, 11. Jer. 2, 30. 8,8 & 9. 1 Cor. 15, 10,
14 & 58. 2 Cor. 6, 1. Gal. 2, 2. Phil. 2, 16. ‘

G2

84. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

2. ἀλλὰ καὶ προπαθόντες---ἀγῶνι. Compare Acts
16, 22 seqq. Προπαῇ. simply signifies ‘‘ after having
suffered,” &c. ‘The verb is often used by Thucyd.
and the best writers. The ὑβρισθέντες refers to his
being scourged; which was an intolerable insult to
a Roman citizen. See Benson. ᾿Ἑπαῤῥησιάμεθα λα-
λῆσαι may be well rendered by our idiom, ‘‘ took
the liberty to speak; mustered up the courage to
speak.” ‘The term often carries with it a verb of
speaking, either expressed (as Eph. 6, 20. and Acts
13, 46.), or understood ; as in Acts 9,27. At ἐν
Θεῳ ἡμῶν some verb is omitted, and mustbe supplied.
We may compare ἐπαῤῥ. ἐπὶ τῴ Κυρίῳ at Acts 14, 3.

2. ἐν πολλῴώ ἀγώνι. The aya may either be ren-
dered, with the early moderns, solicitous and painful
care and study: as in Col. 2, 1., and the Sept. ;* or
(with the antients, and, of the moderns, Grot., and
almost all later Commentators) peril, danger; as in
Phil. 1, 30. and Arrian Exp. Alex. 3, 15, 1. drs &
ἀγῶνι ξυνέχεται τὸ κατὰ ohas, καὶ βοηθεῖν δεῖ. And
this latter sense seems more agreeable to the words
following ; though, indeed, both may be united.

8. ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν---δόλω. Παράκλησις must
here (as Koppe observes) signify teaching, and com-
prehend the whole of the Apostle’s religious instruc-
tion; as Acts 13, 15. 15, 31. See also Loesner’s
examples. The construction, he thinks, is Hebraic.
But it seems rather popular. Οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης. The
πλανὴ may denote either imposture and seduction ;
as Eph. 4, 14. 2 Thess. 2, 11. 1 Joh. 4, 6. 2 Pet. 3,

* To which may be added Thucyd. 2, 45. ὁρῶ μέγαν τὸν ἀγῶνα
(where [ shall adduce many more examples), and also Thucyd. 7,
71. ὁ δὲ πεξὸς---πολὺν τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ ξύστασιν τῆς γνώμης εἶχε,
where many eminent Critics read from Plutarch ξύντασιν (i.e. with
agonizing intentness of mind). AndI would add that so Valla seems
to have read. And this reading is supported by an imitation of
Dio Cass. 367. Yet, strange to say, in another still plainer imita-
tion at 575 ἃ 576., he reads ξύστατσιν, which is, moreover, defended
by many other passages which I shall adduce in my note on that
passage. I must therefore regard the common reading as the true
one.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 85

17.; or error, self-deceit, enthusiasm; as Rom. 1,
27. James 2, 18., and sometimes in the Sept. The
former interpretation is here adopted by Benson,
whom see; the latter, by Koppe, Mackn., Schleus.,
Rosenm., and most Commentators. Οὔτε ἐξ ἀκαθαρ-
σίας, nor from impure and corrupt motives, desire
of wealth, honours, &e., nor founded in a desire of
sensual gratification.” In this sense, as denoting
moral impurity, the word is used in Rom. 6, 19.
1 Thess. 4, 8., and in the Sept. See Schleus. Lex.,
V. T., and Trommius. So also Arrian, cited by
Koppe: ψυχῆς ἀκαθαρσία, δόγματα πονηρά. Benson
takes it for physical impurity, i.e. lewdness. But in
this I cannot assent to the learned Commentator.

8. οὔτε ἐν δόλῳ. “ As their doctrine (says Benson)
did not proceed from imposture or impurity, so nei-
ther did they preach it in guile. ‘They used no craft
or artifice in the preaching of it; did not artfully
conceal some parts, and mix or adulterate others ;
did not assert the necessity of the Gentile Christians
observing the law of Moses in order to please the
Jews; did not model Christianity according to the
old heathen religion, or contrive methods to make
them easy in their vices, in order to draw in great _
numbers of the Gentiles.” See 1 Pet. 2, 1. and 3,
10. Δόλος, which has so much perplexed the Ety-
mologists, seems to be derived from the Heb. nds,
to draw out, make fine ; and thus literally signifies
finesse.

4. ἀλλὰ καθὼς----λαλοῦμεν. This is exegetical of
the preceding ἐν δόλῳ. The sense is: ‘* We adulte-
rate nothing (so Rosenm.); we preach nothing but
what we have been divinely taught ; we use no base
arts, but only obey the Divine will.” Others think
that καθὼς and οὕτω do not refer to the mode in
which the Gospel was taught, but merely mean
sicut and sic. The construction is rather unusual, and
the Commentators say it is for ἐδοκιμάσε ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς,
ὥστε πιστευεῖν ἡμῖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. ‘There is, I think,

80. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. If.

a blending of two clauses into one; q.d. “ as we are
approved by God, and put in trust with the Gospel.”
Or we may supply οὕτω, corresponding to the ellip-
tical οὕτω before πιστευθῆναι. In the active, indeed,
oxi. is far more usual, and in the sense approve,
choose, &c. it occurs in Rom. 14, 22. and 1 Cor.
16, 3. Yetit does occur in the passive in this sense at
2 Macc. 4, 3, and Xen. Mem. 3, 5. cited by Schleus.
The sense is clear from the preceding verse.

4. οὐκ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες, i. 6. (as Pisc., Me-
noch., Koppe, and Rosenm. explain) ‘‘ studying to
please men.” But it rather seems to be put for ws
avlowraperkos; aS in Eph. 6, 6. The former ex-
pression, however, is used, for better adaptation to
the antithesis ἀλλὰ τῷ Oew. I would compare
Soph. Phil. 1445. and Ignat. ad Rom. (Ὁ. 2. οὐ γὰρ
θέλω ὑμῖν (1 conjecture ὑμᾶς) ἀνθρωπαρεσκησαι, ἀλλὰ
Θεώ ἀρέσαι. Why this should be done is beautifully
suggested by Soph. Antig. 74. as follows: ἐπεὶ
πλείων χρόνος ὃν δεῖ μ᾽ ἀρέσκειν τοῖς κάτω, τῶν ἔνθαδε.

The ὁ δοκιμάϑων τὰς καρδίας is a perpetual epithet
of God, both in the Old and New Testament. Thus
Acts 1, 24. 15, 6. and Rom. 8, 27., where see the
notes. See an excellent Sermon on the above two
verses by Dr. Maltby, vol. 2.

5, 6. On the sentiment contained in these verses,
which are to be joined, compare 2 Cor. 2, 17. So
Koppe, who (after Vatab.) says that οὐκ---ἐγενήθημιεν
is for οὐκ ἐκολακεύσαμεν ; and he cites Classical ex-
amples of ἐν λόγῳ εἶναι and γενέσθαι for λέγειν, ἐν πράγ-
ματι εἶναι for πράττειν, ἐν παράβασει γινεσθαι for πα-
ραβαίνω, and such like. ‘This savours of Hebraism ;
λόγῳ κολακείας being for κολακείᾳ ; aS λόγος πορνείας at
Matt. 5,28. At least, ἐν is strongly expressive of
habit and plan of life. Thus ἐν δόλῳ at ver. 4.
Koppe well remarks that by this is denoted the
agendi ratio. See Grot. As to Hammond’s inter-
pretation, ‘ to be talked of for flattery,” it is entirely
refuted by Benson.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 87

The ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας Loesner, Koppe, Ro-
senm., and Schleus., take for ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ, and ad-
duce examples of the pleonasm from Philo. But to
this summary way of wrapping up matters I can never
give praise. Philo is a pleonastic writer ; St. Paul is
not : and the nature of pleonasms (as they are called)
of this sort I have often before explained. They
will usually be found to be two phrases blended into
one. I therefore most approve of the version of
Benson, “ nor carried on any covetous design under
a fair pretence.” See also Mackn. IIaeove§. per-
haps does not so much signify avarice, or covetousness,
as a greediness for self-gratification, including even
that of glory and fame.* But, in order to make this
the plainer, the Apostle adds, οὔτε ϑητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώ-
πων δόξαν, ““ not seeking glory from men.” ‘The par-
ticiple is thought to be for the verb égytycapev. At
least this is convenient, in order to hang thereon the
particle δυνάμενοι; for the words οὔτε---ἄλλων are in
some measure parenthetical.

6. δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι. On the meaning of ἐν
βάρει Commentators, both antient and modern, have
been divided in opinion. Thus Theophyl.: ἢ ἐν
Tiny, καὶ δόξη, καὶ ὄγκῳ, ἢ δυνάμενοι λαμβάνειν καὶ τρέ-
ῴεσθαι, καὶ βαρεῖς ὑμῖν εἶναι. Kal γὰρ τὸ ἀξίωμα ἡμῶν
τουτοὸ ἀπαιτεῖ, λαμβάνει Tap ὑμῶν. ‘Lhe former inter-
pretation, to be in great dignity and authority, is
adopted by many modern Commentators ; as Pisc.,
Zanch, Hamm., Vitringa, Benson, and others; and
is also supported by the Syr. Version. ‘This also is
thought to best agree with what precedes. The
common punctuation, too, by which these words
are connected with the former, is favourable to it.
But in other editions these words commence the 7th
verse; and Koppe observes that that interpretation

* Thus Milton, in a fine passage of his exquisite Lycidas:
Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise,
(That last infirmity of noble minds,)
To scorn delights, and live laborious days.
See also Paradise Regained, L. ILI. sit. init. and the notes of Dr.
Jortin. οὐ

88 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

is scarcely permitted by propriety of language: at
least it cannot be proved from 2 Cor. 4, 17. Many
eminent Interpreters, both antient and modern, as
Beza, Grotius, Gomar, our English Translators,
Doddr., Koppe, and Rosenm. (rightly, I think),
prefer the latter ; and it is ably defended by Wolf.
Certainly it is more agreeable to the context. Com-
pare ver. 9 & 11. and 2 Cor. 11,9., where the Apostle
says he preserved himself ἀβαρῆ. See aiso 2 Thess.
8,7. 1 Tim. 5, 11. It is plain that ἐν βάρει εἶναι, is
for βαρὺς εἶναι, ἐπιβαρεῖν.

Thus it would appear that the words οὔτε ϑητοῦντες
---ἄλλων are parenthetical; though it is not neces-
sary to suppose so. After all it is not impossible
that the Apostle has in view two significations of ἐν
βάρει εἶναι to be burdensome by accepting a stipend,
and to be, as we say, hard upon them, by assuming
the full authority of an Apostle. So Diczarchus,
cited by Wets.: διὰ τὸ βάρος ἢ τὴν ὑπερηφάνειαν τών
κατοικούντων" and Hor. Ep. 2, 1, 13.*

7. ἀλλ᾽ ἐγενήθημεν ἥπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. The ἀλλὰ
is thought, by Rosenm., to be pleonastic: but, I
think, without reason. The sense is: “ Yet (this
we were not, but) were mild among you.” The
epithet is often, in the Classical writers, applied to
parents, and therefore to Kings, as being figuratively
fathers. (See Wetstein’s examples.) This sort of
spiritual paternity the Apostle alludes to in the
words ws ἂν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα : and this is
sufficient to defend the common reading; though
several antient MSS., some Versions, Fathers, and
Commentators read νηπίοι, which is preferred by
Calvin, and not disapproved of by Whitby. But
that, as Benson observes, would require ὦ νηπίοι.
Besides (I would add) the Apostle no where employs
νηπίος in this sense. He would have thus written
τέκνα. But it is needless to dilate on such a point;

* To which I add Joseph. p. 35. οὐδὲ yap ἔσεσθαι βαρὺς. Ach.
Tat. 660. φορτικοὶ εἶναι" & 302, 13. βαρὺς αὐτῷ γένοιτο. Xenoph,
Hist. 3, 2, 1. ἐβουλεύετο---ὅπως ἂν μὴ ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ χειμάξων, βαρὺς
«ἴη τοῖς Euppaxors.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 89

since the ν has plainly adhered from the preceding
word, as in a thousand other cases.

The ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν is a Hebraism (derived from
t5951NA) for ἐν ὑμῖν, “ among you.” Τρόφος here
denotes one who suckles a child, whether a mother,
or, as we say, a wet-nurse. Thus it is sometimes in
the Sept. and the Classical writers used for a mother.
Θάλπω, whatever be its origin (for here all etymolo-
gists are in the dark; the word being, it seems,
derived from some other language), certainly signi-
fies, properly, to warm, cherish, as a hen who sits on
her chickens. See Deut. 22, 6. and Job 39, 10.
It is also used of the wite taken by David in his old
age. See 1 Kings 1,2&4. Schleus. also refers to
Soph. Antig. 427. Hence it comes to denote any
sort of care by which a mother provides for the nou-
rishment and comfort of her children. See Eph. 5,
19. and the note.

The ἑαυτῆς is, in our common versions, rightly
omitted; as is often the case with the personal pro-
nouns, and ἴδιος. So that Benson and Mackn. have
done wrong in expressing it, and making it em-
phatical.

8. οὕτως ἱμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν, “ thus being aftection-
ately desirous of promoting your interest.” It is
strange that so many Critics should have preferred
the reading ὁμειρόμενοι, from several MSS., some early
Editions, and ‘Theophyl.: and that it should have
been received into the text by both Griesbach and
Matthei. Itisa word of no authority whatever, and
formed contrary to all analogy. As to Theophylact’s
defence of it, it is too weak to bear examination.
The principle on which the Critics have preferred it,
namely, as being the more difficult, really will not
apply to words, like the present, formed contrary to
analogy, and destitute of authority ; and especially
if we can account for them from mere error ; which
is the case here ; for the o arose, doubtless, from the
c preceding ; and the oie. would easily pass into
oper. especially as ὀμειρ. or ὀμηρ. was familiar; ine.

90 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

less so; and yet the latter word is used by the best
writers, not only Poets, but also prose writers, as
Herodot., Demosth., A@lian, Polyb., Plutarch, and
others, cited by the Philological Commentators.

8. εὐδοκοῦμεν μεταδοῦναι----Ψυχὰς, “ we were ready
and willing,” &c. Μεταδοῦναι, to impart, has pro-
perly the genitive and dative, but here, as elsewhere,
the accusative and dative. The accusative, however,
is used because no one can be supposed to give ano-
ther part of his life, The truth is, there is (as Grot.
observes) a syllepsis: for μεταδοῦναι is used of the
Gospel proprié ; of life improprié, or by metonymy.
On the sentiment, which is inexpressibly affection-
ate, see Benson.

9. μνημονεύετε yap—rto εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, Com-
pare 2 Thess. 8, 7—9. ‘The μνημονεύετε is well ren-
dered by Koppe memineritis. Benson renders it,
“ye must remember.” Τὸν κόπον pov καὶ Tov μόχθον.
These words are nearly synonymous; though the
latter is the stronger term; so that there is a kind
of climax. The νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is treated by most
Commentators as put populariter, for assidué; and
Koppe refers to 3,10. But that passage is not to
the purpose ; nor does the idiom apply here. For
I apprehend the Apostle here adverts to his exces-
sive application to his handicraft labour, at some
times almost toiling night and day, in order to allow
himself opportunity, at other times, to pursue his
evangelical labours. Or perhaps he may allude to
his custom of making up for the loss of time by day
at his trade, by might labour: and of this I have
observed hints in the foregoing Epistles.

On ἐπιβαρῆσαι τινα compare ver. 7. and 2 Cor. 12,
16. Εἰς ὑμᾶς is for ὑμῖν.

10. ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες---ἐγενήθημεν. The words ὁσίως,
δικαίως, and ἀμέμπτως, are treated by Koppe and
Rosenm. as synonymes, but combined, to strengthen
the sense. ‘The os., however, regards duty towards
God; the d«. that towards men; ἀμεμπτ. both ;
(though Theophyl. explains, ἀπροσκοπῶς, ἀσκανδαι-

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 91

λίστεως.) Yet, I grant, non argutandum est in
verbis, :

11, 12. παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ παραμυθούμενοι. The
participles wapox. and παραμ. stand for verbs; or
ἐσμεν is understood ; or ἐγενήθημεν may be supplied
(with Wolf) from the preceding verse. The terms
παρακ., Tapay., and μαρτυρούμ. are said by Koppe
and Rosenm. to be synonymous. But there seems
rather to be a climax: certainly μαρτ. in this sense
is stronger than either of the two former ones (so
Theophyl.: πληκτικωτέρως διδασκαλίας ἐστιν), and
signifies obtestart; as in Deut. 32, 16. So papru-
ρομαι, Eph. 4, 17. and Thucyd. 6, 80. and also Pro-
cop. 248, 40. μαρτύρεσαι γέτιγιν. And παραμ.. seems
to be a stronger term than zwapax. It is not well
rendered console. The best modern critics observe,
that the term may here have the same sense found
sometimes in Homer (as II. 6. 417 & 680. See Damm.
Lex.). Xenoph. Venat. 6, 25. (to which may be
added Appian 2, 892. μαρτύρομαι καὶ rapaKarod) by
which it signifies to counsel, urge, swadeo.

At εἰς τὸ περιπατ. &c. compare Col. 1, 16., where
see the note. The image at πατὴρ corresponds to
that at τροφὸς, ver. 7. Wets. compares Hom. Od. a.
308. In the ἕνα ἔκαστον ὑμῶν παρακαλούντες (with
which I would compare Thucyd. 7, 69. τῶν τριηραρ-
χῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον ἀνεκάλει) some recognise an allusion
to the teaching from house to house. See Acts 2,
20. It simply signifies (I think) that he taught
them individually as well as collectively. Βασιλείαν
καὶ δόξαν. A common hendiadis for βασιλείαν ἔνδοξον.
See Benson.

13. ὅτι παραλαβόντες---πιστεύουσιν. Παραλάμβανω
is ἃ term often used of receiving instruction, either
oral, or by letter. So Phil. 4, 9. & ἐμάθετε καὶ παρε-
λάβετε καὶ ἀκούσατε" where see the note. Inthe words
παραλάβοντες---Θεοῦ there is a trajectio. The παρα-
AaB. λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τοῦ Θεου, and λόγον ἀκοῆς are
said to be for λόγον or ἀκοὴν; as Hebr. 4, 2. I should
regard this as a Hebraism. (answering to \27) often

92 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, II.

joined to pleonasms. There may be (as Morus thinks)
an allusion to Is. 53, 1. τις ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν.

"EdéEacbe, received, admitted, approved, embraced
it. So Theophyl.: προσέιχετε. Rosenm. cites He-
rodot. 2. ἐδέχοντο τοὺς λόγους. I add Thucyd. 1, 95.
ἐδέξαντο τοὺς λόγους, Kal πρόσειχον τὴν γνώμην. The
earlier Commentators seem nut to have perceived
this sense of ἐδεξ., but to have confounded the term
with παραλ.

13. ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται, “ which is operative.” The ὃς
is by some referred to Θεοῦ; by others to λόγου. The
latter method is adopted by the most eminent mo-
dern Commentators. And so some antients, as
CEcumen. αὔξει διὰ τοῦ ὑμετέρου βίου. And Theo-
phyl.: ἐκ τῶν ἐργῶών δείκνυται, “has an operative in-
fluence on your hearts and lives, producing the
fruits of good works.” Other antients, however, and
moderns refer it to Θεοῦ. So Theodoret: προφητικῆς
γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ χάριτος ἀπολαύσαντες, καὶ προεφήτευον,
καὶ γλωσσαῖς ἡλάλουν, καὶ θαύματα ἐπετέλουν παράδοξα.
And if that construction be true, it must have re-
ference to the χαρίσματα, also called ἐνεργήματα,
1 Cor. 12, 6. 10, 11. and Eph. 3, 20., such as were
vouchsafed not only to the Corinthians, but to the
Galatians and Ephesians, and also the Thessalonians.
(1 Thess. 5, 19 & 20. and 1 Thess. 1, 5.) See Whitby,
who, among other modern Commentators, adopts
this interpretation. The former seems to deserve
the preference: but perhaps the Apostle had in
mind both the above senses.

14. ὑμεῖς yeag—X. I. Mackn. supposes the Apostle
here introduces a reply to an objection against the
truth of Christianity, founded in the disbelief of
the Palestine Jews, and their bitter persecution of
Christ and his disciples; which, he means to say, is
reputed by their treatment of their own Prophets,
of whom there was scarcely one that they had not at
least persecuted. See Acts 7, 52. A very ingenious,
but perhaps not well founded, and too hypothetical,
a view; at least there can only be a faint allusion in

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, II. 93

the words following, τῶν καὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἀποκτεινάντων
Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. Here the Apostle
seems to intend an allusion to the proofs of divine
ἐνέργημα upon them, namely, in enabling them to bear
persecution and calamity. That such an ἐνέργημα
of the holy spirit was thought necessary to produce
that effect, we learn from various passages of the
New Testament.

The plain sense, therefore, is: ‘Such an ἐνέργημα
ye had; for ye showed exemplary fortitude and
patience,” &c. This, however, the Apostle expresses
in a more refined way, by saying: ‘‘ ye were imitators
of the Palestine church,” &c.; just as at 1, 6. “ye
were μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ Kupiov, δεξάμενοι
τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ" where see the note.

On the expression ἐκκλησιών---Χριστῷ I. see 1, 1.
and the note. Such churches or congregations had
been founded in various parts of Judea by those
who had fled from the persecution after the murder
of Stephen. See Acts 8, 1—4. The Jews were
every where the bitterest persecutors of Christians ;
and thus the Palestine ones suffered most from that
baleful spirit. See Benson.

Συμφυλετών, literally, fellow clansmen, and in a
general way countrymen.

15. καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας. On the ἰδίους there
has been some difference of opinion. Being omitted
in a few Versions and Latin Fathers, it is regarded
as spurious by many critics, and has been cancelled
by Griesb.; but (1 think) on insufficient grounds.
One can hardly suppose that a marginal gloss should
have crept into nearly all the MSS. It is far more
probable that it was cancelled in a few copies, from
a groundless fear lest it might countenance the
heresy of Marcion, that the Jewish Prophets were
not the Prophets of the true God ; and as an excuse
for the omission, they would be likely to plead a
corruption of the text ; and to cast that on Marcion
himself would clench the argument. It is certain that
the common reading, supported by nearly all the

94 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

MSS., the most antient Versions, and the unanimous
consent of the Greek Fathers and Commentators,
must be retained. It is ably defended by Whitby
and Benson, and its emphasis must not, with Koppe,
be explained away by taking it for ἑαυτών. When
the Prophets of the Old Testament are so called, it
must be observed they are called according to the
opinion of the people in question: a figure often used
by the best writers. And it is frivolous to object
that these Jews did not themselves kill the Prophets
of old. For (as Benson observes) they were actu-
ated by the same spirit, and formed, as it were, the
same people, and are so considered by our Lord,
Matth. 23, 29—37. Nay, had the Prophets of old
lived in their days, and so freely rebuked their vices,
they would have slain them like their forefathers.
Hence they are often charged with the murder of
their own Prophets. See 1 Kings 19, 10 & 14. Neh.
9, 26. Jer. 2, 30. Luke 6, 23. 23, 33 & 84.
᾿Εκδιωξάντων, i. 6. literally, ‘* chased away by
persecution, or, in a general sense, persecuted. Καὶ
Θεῴ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων. Some take ἀρεσκ. in the sense
seek to please; as 2, 4. and Gal. 1,10. It should
rather seem to be said, by meiosis, for “ are in dis-
favour with God.” So Koppe explains Θεοστυγεῖς,
And so Theophyl. See also Wakef. on Eurip. Alc.
65. On the words καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
which indicate that antipathy to all other nations
(called by Tacitus the adversus omnes alios hostile
odium), which raised ‘“ their hand against every man’s
hand, and every man’s hand against theirs,” the
Commentators adduce copious proofs and illustra-
tions. It may be sufficient to note Diod. Sic. p. 5, 25.
μόνους γὰρ ἁπάντων ἐθνῶν ἀκοινωνήτους εἶναι τὴς πρὸς ἄλλο
ἔθνος ἐπιμιξίας, καὶ πολεμίους ὑπολαμβάνειν πάντας.
The passage οἵ Juvenal Sat. 14, 103. will readily
occur to my readers: “ Non monstrare vias, eadem
nisi sacra colenti; Quesitum ad fontem solos dedu-
cere verpos.” On the spirit by which the Jews
were actuated towards the Christians see Benson.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 95

16. κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσι λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθώσιν.
The κωλ. is rightly rendered by Benson and Mackn.
hindering. So Theophyl.: ἐμποδιϑόντων. It, how-
ever, includes forbidding. At λαλῆσαι the Com-
mentators understood τὸν λόγον, the Gospel. But
the unbelieving Jews could not approve of the Gos-
pel being preached to the Jews. Therefore by
λαλῆσαι 1 would understand instruction in religion
generally, by withdrawing them from Heathenism.

16. ἵνα σωθῶσιν. ‘The Commentators rightly remark
that the ἵνα is eventual, like the Hebr. 2, or jyo?,
“in order to their being saved.” <‘* Thus (says
Theophyl.) they are the common enemies of the
human race, by hindering the common salvation.”

16. εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτών τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε.
This is rendered by Benson and Mackn., “ whereby
they are filling,’ &c. A sense, however, scarcely
permitted by the force of the εἰς τὸ, which is well
explained by Phot. ap. Gicumen.: ἵνα πάντοτε ἀνα-
πληρωθῶσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῶν" adding, ἐπειδὴ γὰρ
πάντοτε ταῦτα ἔπραττον" πάντοτε ἀνεπλήρουν τὰς ἀμαρ-
τίας αὐτών. And Theophyl.: ἵνα δεικνύωσιν ἑαυτοὺς
τὰ τελειότατα ἁμαρτάνοντας, καὶ φθάνοντας τὸ πλῆρες
μέτρον τῆς κακίας καὶ ἀκρότατον. So Doddr. “as if
they desired to fill up,” &c. And so Koppe, who
renders: “ita fit, ut peccatorum suorum vim semper
magis Magisque augeant, eorumque pcenas eo atro-
ciores sibi contrahant.” He adds that this is agree-
able to the Scriptural opinion concerning sins and
their punishment, namely, that God indeed per-
mits men to fill up a certain number of evil deeds,
and until then spares them and delays the punish-
ment; but if this number should be completed, then
the punishment is inevitable. See Gen. 15, 16.
᾿Αναπληρώσαι τ. a. signifies to fill up the measure, &c.
as Matth. 23, 32. In this, Benson thinks, there is
an allusion to filling up a vessel to the brim. (See
his note.) Πάντοτε is not well rendered semper. It
signifies omni modo, Angl. every way.

96 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

16. ἔφθασε δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος. At ἡ ὀργὴ
must be supplied τοῦ Θεοῦ, which seems implied by
the article. It is observed, too, by Theoph., that the
article shows this ὀργὴν, to be ὀφειλομένην αὔτοις, καὶ
προωρισμιένην, καὶ προφητευομένην due to them, predes-
tined, and predicted by the Prophets.” Here ὀργὴ is to
be taken in the sense of punishment ; as supra 1, 10.
where see the note. ξφθασε is by some, (as Koppe)
taken in a future sense. But I prefer to regard
it (with Benson) as a Paulo-post future: and we
may suppose that, as being an aorist, it is taken in a
sense between the preterite and present; q. d. ‘‘is,
i a manner, coming upon them.” For it came upon
them in the destruction of the nation and the dis-
persion of the remnant a very short time (about
twenty years) afterwards. Of this idiom the Com-
mentators adduce as examples Eccles. 8, 4. Dem. 7,
22, Matt. 12, 28. and Rom. 9, 31.

Eis τέλος may mean either at the last, at length,
(as it is interpreted by some early moderns, as Ben-
son, Mackn., Rosenm., Koppe, and Wets., which last
mentioned Commentator compares Hom. Il. a. 451.
64 σε τέλος θανάτοιο κιχήμενον οὐδ᾽ ὑπάλυξας" and so
most recent ones); or, ‘‘for an end, and to the
uttermost.” So the antients, who explain ἄχρι
τέλους, and many eminent moderns, as our English
translators, Doddr., Schmidt, and Homberg; and
this is a far more significant and apposite sense. (See
Dodd. and Wets. ap. Slade.) ‘The Commentators
compare the Hebr. 1173 Jy, and refer to Dan. 9, 27.
Num. 17, 13. and Joseph. 8, 24. 10,20. They might
(I think) have also compared the expression make a
full end in Jer. 4, 27. 5, 10. and Ez. 11, 13. To
urge that the destruction was not utter, because a
few escaped, is frivolous. :

17. ἡμεῖς δὲ---καιρὸν ὥρας. The Apostle now re-
turns to the Thessalonians, from whom, by these
rather vehement strictures on the Jews, their present
iniquity and future ruin, he had made a digression :

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 07

and he freely expresses his desire of again seeing
them. (Heinr.)

17. ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, “ separated and kept
apart from you.” ‘This word is somewhat rare ; but
it occurs in Adschyl. Choeph. 244., and also in the
passive, as here. Abresch on that passage adduces
two examples of the simple in a metaphorical sense,
one from Hyllus ap. Joph. in Trach. 958., and the
other from Pind. Pyth. 4, 504. The term is used
properly of the separation of children from parents;
but also of that of parents from children; as here.
(So Hesych.) For Christian teachers were regarded
as spiritual fathers. We have a continuation of the
metaphor at ver.7 ἃ 11. See Theodor.

Πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας ῖ5. taken by the best Commenta-
tors (as Grot.) for πρὸς καιρὸν; as in 2 Cor. 7, 8.
Gal. 2, 5. Philem. 15.5; or πρὸς ὥραν, in Luke 8, 13.
and 1. Cor. 7, 5. So Gen. 18, 10. Mm Nya, where
the Sept. renders κατὰ καιρὸν εἰς ὥρας. And so the
the Latin hore momento. It should rather that
these double expressions both in Hebr. Greek, and
Latin, are properly intended to convey more mean-
ing than either of the phrases singly. So Theophyl.:
πρὸς καιρὸν βραχὺν καὶ ὀλίγον, καὶ ὅσον ὥρας μιᾶς λογί-
ὅεσθαι. And though it was several years before the
Apostle did revisit them, yet he seems here to have
intended a much more speedy return to them
(whether so soon as some suppose, may be thought
very doubtful); not to say, as (Doddr. observes)
that “ his mind was so full of the ideas of eternal life
as to annihilate every period of mortal life.”

The expression προσώπῳ, οὐ καρδίᾳ, is very elegant,
and indeed touching. And it is impossible to con-
ceive any stronger than the following, περισσοτέρως
ἐσπουδάσαμεν ἐν πολλῃ ἐπιθυμίᾳ ; for these are to be
conjcined ; ἐν ἐπιθῇ. being a phrase for an adverb.
᾿Εσπουδάσαμεν, strove; as Eph. 4, 5. 2 Tim. 2, 15.,
and elsewhere. Περισσοτέρως, exceedingly. A word
often used by the Apostle, as also other words be- |
ginning with περὶ and ὑπὲρ. (See Grot.) Τὸ πρόσωπον

VOL, VIII. H

98 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν. A Hebraism for, ‘‘ be present with you;”
as 1 Cor. 16, 7. The force of the phraseology is
well illustrated by Theophy]. and Benson.

18. Διὸ ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. The διὸ is ren-
dered by Benson, “ therefore it is evident that.” It
rather seems to signify “impelled by this desire,”
and may be well rendered wherefore. "Hoerjoapey,
i.e. ‘*we were desirous; our mind was set upon
coming.” ᾿Εγὼ μὲν Παυλὸς, “ I Paul indeed, at least,
or in particular.” Koppe observes, that this inter-
pretation of the plural number, which St. Paul every
where uses in the present Epistle, though speaking
of himself, is to be noted and borne in mind. See
the note on 1, 2. On ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς, see the note on
Phil. 4, 16. I would compare Appian 2, 80, 30.
καὶ τοῦτο δὶς καὶ τρὶς ἑτέροις καὶ ἑτέροις πρέσβεσιν εἰπὼν.
Καὶ, 1, but ᾿Ενέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς, “ thwarted our
purpose.” See the note on Gal. ὅ, 7. This is im-
puted to Satan, as having been done by wicked per-
sons, and it was to be presumed, at his suggestion,
and with his assistanee, or that of his subordinate
agents (see 1 Cor. 7, 5. Eph. 2, 2. and Ap. 20, 3, 7
ὃς 8.); just as whatever is good is attributed to the
influence of the holy spirit. So Koppe; though he
and most recent foreign Commentators push the
matter much farther, and run into foolish, not to say
irreverent, speculations on this subject.

19. τίς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς---χταρουσίῳ ; ‘The connection,
(which is not well traced by the Commentators) seems
to be this: ‘And it is no wonder that we should
thus feel desirous of seeing you; for, what is our
hope,” &c. After γὰρ, it would have been plainer
to have written, “ye are our hope.” But the inter-
rogation, with the answer to it, is used instead, by
an elegance not unworthy of Demosthenes himself.
‘The construction, too, of the words is somewhat
embarrassed per trajectionem ; and it is thus adjusted
by Koppe and Rosenm.: τις γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐλπὶς, ἢ χαρὰ,
ἢ στέφανος καυχήσεως ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Kugiou ἑμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ; ᾿Ελπὶς

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IT. 99

and χαρὰ are put, by metonomy, for “ cause of hope
and joy.” ‘This use of ἐλπὶς, and the Latin spes, is
common in the Classical writers, from whom Wets.
adduces several examples. Koppe regards the ἐλπὶς,
χαρὰ, and kavy. as nearly synonymous, and all used
to denote felicity. But the terms will bear discri-
mination; and there seems to be a climax. On the
ἐλπὶς ἐστε compare Col. 1, 27. and 1 Tim. 1,1. By
kavy. is meant joy of the highest sort, accompanied
with self-congratulation, &c. When united with
στέφανος (on which I would compare Soph. Aj. 465.
στέφανον εὐκλείας,) it forms a phrasis pregnans, in
which two phrases are united: “ye are our (cause
of) reward, and (cause of) exultation’.’ So Theo-
phyl. The καὶ in καὶ ὑμεῖς, imports (as Theophyl.
Grot., Pisc., Erasm., Est., Koppe, and Rosenm. ob-
serve) ye also, i.e. ‘ye also, as well as some other
congregations.” Others take it to signify even,
which sense Benson strenuously, but not (1 think)
successfully, supports.

The remaining words denote the advent of Christ
to judgment.

20. ὑμεῖς yap ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμών καὶ ἡ χαρά. Tap is
not merely a particle of transition, as Koppe sup-
poses. Crell. rightly remarks that it expresses the
force of the preceding interrogation, and so repeats
the same sentence, with asseveration; q. d. “ I may
well say so; for ye surely are,” &c. So Tindale:
‘yea, ye are our glory and joy.” Benson renders it
certainly : and he compares a similar use of the
Hebr. 3. He observes too, that the present is put
for the future; and well paraphrases thus: “ ye are
the persons that will be,” &c. Compare Dan. 12, 3.
1 Cor. 1, 14. Phil. 2, 6. 4, 6. Thess. 3,13. Benson
and Mackn. infer from hence (somewhat precari-
ously) that the words imply a personal knowledge of
his converts at the last day, and therefore establish
the doctrine that we shall know our friends in an-
other state.. ἐγ ὃν

Η ὁ

100 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

CHAP. 11.

1. Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμιεν----μιόνοι. The
sense of the verse is somewhat obscure, from brevity,
and the idiomatical use of στέγοντος and εὐδοκήσαμεν.
It is of importance to attend to the διὸ, which has
(I think) the same force as at 2,18. For (though
the Commentators do not notice it) the Apostle
means to give them another proof of his affection.
Sréyovres is regarded by most moderns as a reci-
procal in the hithpahel sense refrain. Others supply
from the context τὸν πόθον ὑμῶν; which method
yields the same sense, but is somewhat too arbitrary.
I prefer the former. The Etym. Mag. explains
στέγω by ὑπομένω. Something, however, seems
wanting to the sense ; and Grot. supplies after μόνοι,
“ triste hoc, sed tamen hoc libenter feceramus, et ego
et Silas vestri caussa.” But this seems too arbitrary
a subaudition, I prefer taking εὐδ., with Theophyl.
and Cécumen., in a double sense, as a vor pregnans,
“we thought good, and endured.” I would para-
phrase: ‘‘ Wherefore so dear were ye to me, that
when I could refrain no longer, and yet found it
impossible for me to visit you, I thought good, and
endured being left alone at Athens.” The subau-
dition “ and yet found it impossible,” &c. is indeed
harsh, but it is adopted by Theodoret.

By the μόνοι, it is plain, the Apostle means himself
only ; as appears from ver. 5. See 2,5 ἃ 18. On
St. Paul’s disagreeable situation on this occasion see
Benson.

2. καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν Τ.--- Χριστοῦ, “our brother mi-
nister, or colleague.” See Col. 1, 1. and the note.
This is not (as Hein.and Rosenm. regard it) a mere
term of affection. διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ. A general
term denoting all teachers of religion, nay, even
Apostles themselves. See 1 Cor. 3,5. By all these

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 101

terms the Apostle means to hint that he had sup-
plied his absence by an able substitute.

2. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι---πίστεως ὑμῶν, “inorder to con-
firm you,” &c. It is matter of debate among Com-
mentators what sense ought to be assigned to παρα-
καλέσαι. Some, following the common signification
of the word, render it exhort. But this seems not a
little harsh. Others, console and comfort. But the
most natural sense, and that most agreeable to the
περὶ τὴς πίστεως, is the one assigned by some mo-
derns, namely, teach, instruct ; as in 2, 8. and Acts
15, 20. where παρακαλεῖν and στηρίϑειν are likewise
joined. It may, however, signify both teach and
admonish ; since the senses are cognate. The Thes-
salonians had, it seems, been wavering for want of
instruction and admonition.

8. τῷ μηδένα---ταύταις. This and the next verse
are explanatory of the στηρίξαι. At τῷ I would sub-
aud ἐπί. Many MSS. read τὸ; others, τοῦ. But
these are evidently ex emendatione, though more
elegant. The common reading, as being the more
difficult and agreeable to the Hellenistical use (for
so the Hebr. 5), ought to be retained. To is for
εἰς τὸ The word caivw from σάω, cognate with cew
and σείω (of which examples are somewhat rare in
the Classical writers, though some are adduced by
Wets.), signifies to move, stir, wag. And σαίνεσθαι
signifies, “to be swayed, and swerve from the faith,
to be troubled. So Hesych.: σαίνει, κινεῖται, σαλεύ-
erat, ταράτεττα. And Chrys. ; θορυβεῖσθαι. Both
these significations may here be conjoined ; for both
are equally supported by the Classical citations of
Wets. and others.

8. αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα. ‘The best
Commentators are agreed that κείμεθα signifies we
are appointed, destined: and they compare Luke
2, 34. and Phil. 1, '7., which latter passage is most
to the purpose. But I cannot think (with Koppe
and Rosenm.) that this isa common phrase import-
ing, “ Such is our fortune and fate.” Nor would I

102 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

press on the sense of destination. As κεῖμαι properly
signifies to be placed, there may possibly be a military
allusion; 4. d. ‘* we are appointed to bear, as a sol-
dier is appointed to maintain a certain post.” I
would here compare Job 5, 7. and 2 Tim. 3, 12.
The Commentators are not agreed whether the
words are to be referred to the Apostles, or extended
tothe Thessalonians, or to all Christians. (See Ben-
son.) It should seem that they are here meant only
for the Apostles and Thessalonians ; but they are
applicable to all Christians, according to the circum-
stances of the Gospel.

4. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς---οἴδατε, “(Nor need I now
say it) for when we were with you.” Πρὸς, apud,

ἐδ, chez; as Matt. 26,55. Mark 9, 19. Joh. 1, 1.
Rom. 5, 1. and often. (See Schleus. Lex.) Ipoe-
λέγομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι. By the we is
here again meant himself and the Thessalonians.
Καθὼς καὶ ἐγένετο, kal ofdare is a somewhat harsh
phrase for, ‘* which also, as ye know, came to pass.”
The Apostle evidently adverts to a prediction of
evils which assuredly came to pass. ‘The conclusion
is obvious, on which see Benson and Mackn. On
the circumstances alluded to see Acts 17, 5—10.

5. διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ, μηκέτι στέγων, &c. Here we
have a resumption of what was said at ver. 1. ἃ 2.;
ver. 3 & 4 being parenthetical. The Apostle, out
of his great anxiety for their spiritual good, sent to
know their state,* and to impart the necessary ad-
monitions, confirmation, and consolation. Μήπως
ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὃ πειράϑων. Here there is the usual
ellipsis of φοβούμινος ; “lest the tempter,” ἄς. Ὁ

* It is well observed by Benson that “the Apostle knew all things
respecting Christ’s doctrine, but was not inspired with a knowledge
of all other things.” { would add, not a perpetual knowledge, but
_only imparted suddenly, as occasion served, like the power of work-
ing miracles. So Theophyl. οὐ πάντα ἥδεσαν οἱ ἅγιοι οὐδὲ ἀπή-
Aavor τῆς θείας ἀεὶ βοηθείας. The mind of man (even of St. Paul)
could hardly have borne the possession of a complete knowledge of
all things, and an unlimited controul over the order of nature, Theo-
phyl. says this power was withheld ἵνα μήτ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐπαίρωνται, &e.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP, III. 108

πειράϑων. ‘This participle, or verbal (which answers
to the Heb. D227) is a common appellation of
Satan. See Schleus. or Wahl. The best modern
Commentators (after τοί.) take the ἐπείρασεν to
signify, tempt with effect, successfully tempt ; citing
Gal. 6, 1. James 1, 13, &c. See Schleus. And,
indeed, there are many verbs that thus denote cum
actione effectum quoque, as Grot. says. ‘The temp-
tation (Benson observes) was a love of ease, a fear of
persecution, or some other worldly views.” On the
extent of this diabolical influence much might be
said; sed ἐπέχω. See the note supra 2, 18.

5. καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὃ κόπος ἡμών. So the Heb.
a. It is only necessary to remark that. this,
compared with 1, 4., proves that they were not, as
individuals, absolutely and unconditionally elected
to eternal life. See the note of Whitby, and especi-
ally Benson.

6. ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντες Τιμοθέου πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμών. The
ἄρτι signifies now, or then, and is emphatic. ’Eaé.,
‘after Timothy had returned to us from you, and
had brought us the good tidings of your (stedfastness
in the) faith and of your love, and that ye have ever-
more a grateful and kind remembrance of us, and
are as desirous to see us as we to see you.” Evayye-
λίξω is here used in its primitive sense, bring good
news ; asin Luke 1,19. Sothe Heb. Wwa. (See
Gesen. Lex. Hebr.)

These virtues, faith and charity, Grot. calls the
egregiam et salutiferam ξυνωρίδα.

7. διὰ τοῦτο παρεκλήθημιν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, “ Upon
this, because of this,’ &c. Grot. and Rosenm. re-
mark on the ¢rajectio here; the true construction
being as follows: ᾿Επὶ racy τῇ θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκη ἡμιῶν
παρεκλήθημεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως. The ἐφ᾽
ὑμῶν, Koppe and Rosenm. say, is redundant. But
that is not exactly the case. Considering, too, the
separation of παρεκλήθημεν and διὰ τῆς πίστεως, it is
very useful to the sense. Ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει καὶ
ἀνάγκῃ ἡἱμιῶν, ““ amidst all our afflictions and necessi-

104 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

ties.” On these terms the Interpreters do not
satisfactorily treat. The best commentary on them
is 2 Cor. 6, 4. ἐν θλίψεσιν, ἐν ἀναγκαῖς, where see the
note. Seealso 12,10. & 11,27. It signifies pinch-
ing want of the common conveniences of life. Theo-
phyl. here elegantly paraphrases : ἡ γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν χάρα
ἀντίῤῥοπος 7 πάσαις ταῖς ἀνάγκαις ἐγένετο.

8. ὅτι νῦν ϑώμεν, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς στήκετε ἐ. K. ‘(We may
well say that we were and are comforted in our distress)
for now (that we have this good news) we do indeed
live,” 1. e. enjoy life. This sense of δὴν and vivere in
the Latin is common. ‘The words of Martial will
readily occur to my readers: “ Noa est vivere sed
valere vita.’ And so Menand. (cited by Wets.)
μικρὸν τι τοῦ βίου Kal στενὸν ϑώμεν χρόνον. See more in
Wets. Στήκετε ἐ. κι, ‘* stand fast, are stedfast in the
faith.” Compare Gal. 5, 1. and Phil. 4, 1., where
see the notes.

9. τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι
περὶ ὑμῶν, ἐπὶ --ἡμών. By τίνα εὐχαριστίαν is meant
τινα εὐχαριστίαν ἀξίαν, ““ what sufficient thanks, how
can we be thankful enough to God.” So Theo-
phyl. : Τοσαύτη ἡ OV ὑμᾶς χαρὰ, ὅτι οὐδὲ εὐχαριστῆσαι

τῷ Θεῷ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν δυνάμεθα ὁ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. See Ps. 116,
12. The words ἐπὶ πάσῃ, &c., are exegetical of the
περὶ ὑμών, and signify: “ on account of the joy we
felt for your sakes.” The πάσῃ here, and at ver. 7.,
signifies what is great. In χαρᾷ ἣ χαίρομεν there is a
usual Hebraism and Hellenism ; though it here, as
often, has an intensive force. λσροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
The best modern Commentators unite this phrase
with χαρᾷ, and render it, sincere, pious. But this is

very frigid; and, considering that the word comes
last in the sentence, something more is requisite. 1
cannot but think that -Chrysost., Theophyl., and
CEcumen., are right in considering the phrase as
meant to refer to God as the Author of that joy;
and to hint that it is his gift, and not to be ascribed
to their own exertions alone.

10. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ὑπὲρ ἐκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι. I

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 105

would observe that the Apostle, in adverting to the
effects which the good news of their stedfastness had
upon him, first mentions his devout thankfulness to
God as the Author, and then his exceeding and per-
petual desire of seeing them, and repairing what was
wanting in their faith. On the νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας I
have treated supra 2, 9.and Eph. 3, 20. Δεόμενοι is
considered as a participle for a finite verb. Or it
may be a nominativus pendens. After it must be
understood roy Θεὸν ; as Rom. 1, 8. Eis τὸ ἰδεῖν is
put (somewhat harshly) for ὥστε ἰδεῖν. ‘The Apostle
does not merely dwell on his self-gratification, but
adverts to the use to which he would make this his
visit subservient, namely, καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα
τῆς πίστεως ὑμών, where, Koppe and Rosenm. ob-
serve, KaTagT. is for προσαναπληροῦν at 2 Cor. 9, 12.
and Col. 1, 24. And, indeed, the passages may very
well be compared as similar: but it is more correct
to say, that the Apostle here blends (or confounds)
two separate phrases with different metaphors, i.e.
Ist, to repair the breaches in their faith ; a metaphor
taken from making garments or nets; @dly, to
supply what is wanting. Yet there is a close con-
nection between them. ‘Thus at Gal. 6, 1. καταρτί-
Sere τὸν τοιοῦτον. ‘Theodoret explains διορθοῦσθε---τὸ
ἐλλεῖπον ἀναπληροῦτε. Now this κατάρτισις would be
effected not so much by imparting (as some think) a
knowledge of truths of which they were ignorant, as
by removing doubts, and rectifying various misap-
prehensions of Christian truths, which are far more
common, even in the most enlightened congrega-
tions, than can easily be supposed.

11. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς ὑμᾶς, ** Now (Lat. autem) may
God himself, even our Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ, direct our way unto you.”* An elegant way

* The Commentators have not sufficiently seen that in κατευθύναι
there is something more to be attended to than taking a straight
course. ‘here seems an allusion to making a straight road (for
with the antients all great roads were carried in a straight direc-
tion) ; which implied a removal of the obstacles by levelling the

106 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

of saying: ‘* May God cause us to come unto you;”
this being a sort of prayer tothe Father and the Son.
Thus we have here an example of prayer addressed
to Christ; as at 2 Thess. 2,16 & 17. and 8, 5, &c.
On which subject Benson has a long annotation.
He contends that the prayers are addressed to Christ
as Mediator. But this I apprehend to be a mistaken
view, and a most unwarrantable refinement. I as-
sent to the opinion of those who maintain (as Whitby)
that prayer offered up by all Christians, in all places,
implies omniscience, omnipresence, and a searching
of all hearts in the Being so addressed ; and there-
fore as this implies Deity, the prayers must be offered
up to him in that capacity ; since then it were frivo-
lous to address him as Mediator.

12. ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ Κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι---εἰς
ὑμᾶς. We have here only to observe that πλεόνασαι
and περισσ. are used in an active sense ; words of
this kind, both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, being
used indifferently, either as neuter, or active. So
also our verb increase. See 2 Cor.9, 8. By πάντας
the recent Commentators would understand all other
congregations of Christians whom the Thessalonians,
from their riches, should assist. But there is no
reason to think that the Thessalonian Christians were
rich ; and the sense is very forced and frigid. 1566
not why we should abandon the interpretation of the
antients and most moderns, who understand all men,
whether Christians or not. And this is placed
beyond a doubt by the use of the same phrase at
5,15. And so Gal. 6, 10. épyafwpeba τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς
πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως,
where see the note. With the κάθαπερ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς
(where must be understood ἀγάπῃ πλεονάξομεν καὶ

eminences, and raising the hollows (see Matt. 3,3. Mark 1,3. Luke
3, 4. Joh. 1, 23. and the notes), to the former of which the κατὰ
chiefly refers. Here there is an allusion to the removal of those ob-
stacles which had been raised by evil beings of every kind, both the
author of evil and his subordinate agents, whether Demoniacal or
human.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. Il. Iv. 107

περισσεύομεν), Which refers to the εἰς ἀλλήλους, we
may compare the καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς supra 6, 13.

12. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι---πατρὸς ἡμών. ‘The εἰς τὸ στ.
is taken by Koppe for στηρίξαι, but this is not neces-
sary. Itisrather for ὥστε στηρίξαι, by a Hebraism. In
the construction there is something awkward, by the
interposition of ἀμέμπτως, which does not well amal-
gamate with the preceding and following words.
Grot. would take it for ἵνα ἧτε ἄμεμπτοι. Compare
seqq. Eph. 5, 27. and 2 Cor. 11,2. And Koppe and
Rosenm. would unite ἀμέμπτως with ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ
Θεοῦ. (See their notes.) In all this, however, there
seems to be something too artificial. It seems better
to regard the whole sentence as consisting of two
separate ones blended into one; consequently some
little sacrifice of grammatical or logical regularity
must be expected.

On the sense of τῶν ἁγίων Commentators are not
agreed. Some antients (as appears from the gloss
in several MSS., ἀγγέλων) and some eminent mo-
derns, as Grot., Wolf, Koppe, and Rosenm., inter-
pret it, the angels, according to the usual description
of the day of judgment. See Matt. 16, 27. 25, 31.
Dan. 7, 10. Mark 8, 38. 2 Thess. 1, 7. By most
antients, including the Vulg., and, of the moderns,
our English ‘Translators, Beza, and Benson, it is
taken to denote all fuithful Christians ; as 2 Thess.
1,10. Philem. 5. Perhaps both may be meant. On
the sentiment see Benson and Mackn.

CHAP. IV.

VersE 1. τὸ λοιπὸν. A formula, Grot. observes,
properantis ad finem; as at 2 Cor. 13, 11. Gal. 6,
17. Eph. 6, 10. Phil. 4, 8. ᾿Ερωτώμεν, ‘‘ we entreat
you.” On this term I have before treated. It oc-
curs in Acts 3, 3. Joh. 14, 16., and often elsewhere,
(See Schleus. or Wahl.) The καθὼς requires an οὕτως
to be supplied at περισσ. Περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν
Θεῷ may be a sort of hendiadis, or be taken (with

108 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IY.

Koppe) for περιπατεῖν ὥστε ἀρέσκειν ; as περιπατεῖν
ἀξίως Θεοῦ at 2, 12. Περισσεύειν is here put for
Sure περισσεύειν, by a common idiom in many verbs.
The term signifies to increase, make proficiency.

2. οἴδατε----Ἰησοῦ. The παραγγελία signifies an
authoritative injunction, from a king, or (as here) a
divinely commissioned legate. For διὰ τοῦ Kupiov
Ἰησοῦ signifies (as Koppe says) “ ex auctoritate
Jesu.”

8. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστι θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμών.
The Apostle now produces one παραγγελία, and that
in the most solemn and impressive manner. “ This
is the will of God (which you are hereby called upon
to obey).” ᾿Αγιασμὸς denotes in general holiness,
purity, and innocence of life, like ἁγιωσύνη 3, 13.
Rom. 6, 19 & 22. But it was especially used of the
cultivation of purity in respect to sensual indul-
gences; and to this the Apostle here immediately
applies it. ᾿Απέχεσθαι depends upon ὥστε.

4,5,6,7,8. The Apostle especially details examples of this
branch of the ἁγιασμὸς, and first adduces πορνεία, which must here
(as in many other places) signify lewdness of every kind, both for-
nication, adultery, and all those impurities with which the Apostle
charges the Gentiles, Rom. 1. So Theophyl.: Πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ etdn
ταύτης Kat πολύπλοκα, ἃ οὐδὲ εἰπεῖν ἠνέσχετο, GAN ἁπλῶς, πάσης,
εἶπεν. The reading πάσης, found in some MSS. and the Syr., and
also Chrys. and the Greek Commentators, seems to have come from
the margin ; though it shows the extent of signification which the
antients affixed to the word.

4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμιών---τιμῇ. It is strange that
there should have been such difference of opinion on
the sense of σκεῦος ; some interpret it of the wife, as
Augustin, T. Aquinas, Est., Pisc., Heins., Wets.,
Schoettg., Koppe, and others. It is strange that this
interpretation should have been maintained by any of
the more recent Commentators, since it had been
long ago completely refuted by Salmasius. (See
Wolf.) It is plain that the Apostle’s injunctions are
meant for ald Christians, whether married or unmar-
ried. So Theodoret: οὐ γὰρ τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι μόνοις
τὴν νομοθεσίαν προσφέρει. And the passage of | Pet.
3, 7. is not applicable; because there σκεῦος has the

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 109

epithet ἀσθενέστερον annexed : and, therefore, though
Schoettg. has proved that the Rabbins call the wife
nak yet that will not here apply ; since the Apostle
intends no such limitation. Still less defensible is the
interpretation of J. H. Maius, Schomer, Triller,
Wokens, and other Dutch * Theologians ap. Wolf,
who, with the characteristic grossness of their nation,
adopt such an one as decorum will not permit me to
state, and which is the less excusable, as they can-
not find a single example at all similar in the
writings of the Apostle. ‘The only interpretation
that will bear examination is that of Chrys., Tertul-
lian, and the Greek Commentators, and most mo-
dern ones, including Benson, Rosenm., and Schleus.,
namely, “his own body,” by a use similar to that of
σκῆνος among the Greek Philosophers. And so vas
is used in Cicero, and in Lucret. 8, 441. See Cor. 4,
7. and the note. And it is observed by Benson, that
Barnabas (Ep. § 7, 11.) calls our Lord’s body the
vessel of his spirit; and ἃ 21. he calls the human
body the beautiful vessel of the body; and Hermes,
L. 1, 5, 1 and 2. calls the body the vessel, without the
addition of any other word to explain it.

Krac$o: signifies to use, preserve; as Luke 21,
19. κτήσασθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμών. See Loesner’s exam-
ples. As to Wetstein’s objections to this use of κτισ.
they seem very frivolous. In εἰδέναι κτᾶσθαι there is
an elegance unperceived by the Commentators, who
explain: “ mind that ye possess,” referring to 5,

* Tam concerned to have to add the name of one of the most
learned Theologians our own nation ever produced, that prodigy of
erudition Gataker, who has here defiled his page by such abomin-
able language, and gross illustrations as would suit better for a note
on Petron, Arbiter, or the Carmina Priapeia, than the word of
God. On this Pole with unusual smartness remarks : ‘‘ Si hic sit loci
sensus, vide et imitare insignem styli Scripture 8. puritatem.” But
this is decency, compared with the truly beastly citations from two
Rabbinical writers adduced by Wets. on the next verse.

+ It is ingeniously remarked by Theophyl.: ὅταν μὲν οὖν σωφρο-
γνῶμεν; καὶ ἢ καθαρὸν, ἡμεῖς αὐτὸ κτώμεθα᾽ ὅταν δὲ ἀκάθαρτον h, ἡ
ἁμαρτία αὐτὸ κτᾶται ἃ γὰρ ἐκείνη ἐπιτάττει, ποιεῖ αὐτὸ ὡς δοῦλον.

110 ] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

12. and 1 Cor. 16,15. There is (I repeat) a deli-
cacy; for he who abuses his body to lewdness may,
by a meiosis, be said not to know how to use it. ’Evri-
μὴ» “in purity.” Said in opposition to ἀτιμία, a
term especially applied to lust, as being a dishonour-
ing of the body. So Rom. 1, 26. πάθη ἀτιμίας.

The words μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας are added per exe-
gesin. Both terms (especially the former) are (as
Koppe remarks) used of lasciviousness. See Gal. 5,
20. Grot.has here some learned and curious remarks
on the peculiar use of the words πάθος, ἐπιθυμία, &c.
by the Greek Philosophers (the substance of which
may be seen in Benson): but almost all these are
strangely out of place; for the sense of the words
being determined by the context, and the subject mat-
ter, they can have no other than that above detailed.

By the ἔθνη Commentators understand the Greeks
and Romans: and here Whitby and Benson enter
into particulars, which (as Deddr. says) are not to
be read without a mixture of commiseration and
horror. Yet the Apostle may be supposed also to
have reference to the Persians and other Oriental
nations, from whom, there is doubt, the abominations
adverted to were derived, mediately or immediately.
Greece, for instance, was first defiled by Persia and
Egypt, which latter nation (from the climate, dense
population, and absorption in manufacturing and
commercial pursuits) was in all ages a sink of im-
purity.

On the virtue of chastity see the sensible remarks
of Benson.

6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι
τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. On the sense of these words Com-
mentators are as little agreed as on the preceding ;
nay, they differ more widely. Almost all the Greek
Fathers and Commentators, and, of the Latin ones,
Jerome and Hilary, and many moderns, as Menoch,
Est., De Dieu, Hamm., Zeger, Raphel, Heins.,
Wets., Whitby, Mackn., Wells, Rosenm., Slade, and
many others mentioned in Wolf, refer them to

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 111

adultery; which was formerly my own opinion.
And certainly this is much countenanced by the
context from ver. 4.; for to that ἀκαθ᾽., and ἁγιασμὸς
seem especially referable. But when we turn to the
phraseology, there appears little to countenance
the interpretation. The proof as regards ὑπερβαίνειν
and πλεονεκτεῖν is singularly weak,* and, at any rate,
would only denote what we call seduction. But then
the Aposle uses the masculine ἀδελφὸν. ‘Though
Mackn., forgetful at once of good sense and deco-
rum, renders: ‘‘that no man should go beyond the
bounds of chastity; or defraud his brother in this
matter, by defiling either him, or his relations, whe-
ther male or female.” The interpretation in ques-
tion moreover requires τῴ πράγματι to be taken in
sensu nequiori; a signification quite unauthorized
by the usage of Scripture (for the passage of 2 Cor.
7, 11. is, as Wolf and Koppe observe, not at all in
point), however it may be found in the Classical
writers (as /schin.,C. Timarch., and Iseeus, cited by
Wets.), like that offacinus in the Latin. That Bp.
Middleton should have adopted an interpretation so
unauthorized, and little agreeable to the whole man-
ner of the Apostle is amazing; and strange indeed it
is that Mr. Slade’s good sense should have been so
dormant as to suffer him to suppose that the Apostle
may allude to making a gain by libidinous practices ;
even more absurd this than his similar perversion of
Ephes. 4, 19. where see the note. Doddr., with an
ἀκρισία unusual to him (and which I can only account
for from extreme inadvertence) would unite both
senses.

I must therefore acquiesce in the interpretation of
most of the Latin and many eminent modern Com-
mentators, as Beza, Zanch, Gomar, Pisc., Vorst.,
Grot., Michaelis, Schoettg., Wolf, Doddr., Koppe,

* And, as Koppe remarks, the uses of the phrases ὑπερβαίνειν
λεκτρὸν and ἐπιβαίνειν, ἄς. are not here applicable. He does not
say why. ‘The reasen is, that the former is purely poetical, and the
latter is too gross to be thought of.

112 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

and Schleus., who here suppose a separate admonition
respecting ἃ vice which, in so commercial a city as
Thessalonica was no doubt very prevalent, namely,
extortion and an over-reaching, grasping, and greedy
disposition.* "Adeagiv does not mean brother Chris-
tian (on which seense some have founded an objec-
tion to this interpretation), but fellow-creature, τὸν
πλησίον, τὸν ἕτερον; as Matt. 5, 22. and numerous
other passages adduced by Schleus. Lex. v.§ 7. To
adduce (as the Commentators do) Classical examples
of the above sense of ὑπερβαίνειν and πλεονεκτεῖν Were
needless. One only shall suffice, since it is an imita-
tion (very antient indeed) of the present passage.
Test. 12 Patriarch. where it is said, “a good man τὸν
πλησίον οὐ πλεονεκτεῖ."

6. ἐν τῷ τράγμιατι is well rendered in our Version
in any matter; for Koppe observes, that μὴ ἐν τῷ
πράγματι is for ἐν μηδένι πράγματι.

6. ἐκδικος ὃ ΚΚυρίος περὶ πάντων τούτων. It is well
remarked by Koppe, that the expression πάντων τού-
των, intimates that the Apostle was speaking of more
than one vice, namely, πορνεία. By τούτων is meant,
the vices just mentioned. I would compare Joseph.
169. init. καὶ νόμος κολαστὴς γίνεται τῶν τοιούτων. Com-
pare kindred passages in Gal. 5, 21. and Rom. 6,
9---11. and the notes. Διαμαρτύρομαι is a stronger
term than peer.

7. ov γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμιᾶς Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
ἁγιασμῷ. ‘These words present the only difficulty in
the way of the interpretation of τὸ μὲ ὑπεοβαίνειν----
αὑτοῦ, which I have adopted, namely, that ἀκαθαρσίᾳ
and ἁγιασμώ seem to be solely meant of fornication,
adultery, &c. ‘There are two ways of removing this
difficulty. Many Commentators, as Grot. and Koppe,
take them to relate to vice in general; as supra Q, 3.
Rom. 6, 19. and sometimes in the Sept. (See Schl.

* It is worthy of observation, that the Apostle in no less than
three passages (Eph. 5, 5. the present, and Hebr. 13, 4.) associates
the vices of fornication and covetousness, as being (we may con-
ceive) the two especially prevalent.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 119

Lex.) But I am inclined to think, with Wolf, that
the Apostle here meant to refer, not to what oc-
curred immediately before, but to the preceding in-
stances; of which irregularity examples are fre-
quent in the Apostle. I am the more inclined to
suppose this, as the words following τὸν δόντα τὸ
πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον are far more applicable to πορ-
νεία than to over-reaching. See (besides other exam-
ples) 1 Cor. 6, 18 and 19. In the ἐπὶ and ἐν we have
an instance of the variation which so characterizes
the Apostle’s style, and similar to what is often met
with in Thucydides.

8. τοιγαροῦν 6 ἀθετῶν, *‘ wherefore, then, he who sets
lightly by these admonitions.” On ἀθετ. see the note
on Gal. 2,31. By ἀνθρώπον the Apostle evidently
means himself: and he adds ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν, since the
contempt shown to him would be to God in the per-
son of his representative. So the Apostle elsewhere
says, ‘* Now, then, we are ambassadors,” &c.* The
neglect, too, would be not only unto God, as giving
these solemn prohibitions, but, what is worse, unto
that God who had given them his Holy Spirit, by
which they might be expected to resist “fleshly lusts
which war against the soul.” It is (I think) evi-
dent, that by the gifts of the Spirit we are here to
understand, not the χαρίσματα, or supernatural gifts
vouchsafed to some, but the ordinary influences of
the Holy Spirit for sanctification, imparted to all :
and in this view I prefer the common reading ἡμᾶς,
which accords better with the humility of the Apos-
tle; though the ὑμᾶς will not materially alter the
sense.

9. περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας od χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν

* The Apostle here seems to have had in view our Lord's words,
Luke 10, 16. ὁ ἀθετῶν, ἃς. ‘* He that despiseth you, despiseth me :
and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” In this
passage St. Paul asserts his own inspiration in the strongest terms,
and with the greatest solemnity ; having in view to instruct the
young and giddy, and all who despised his precepts concerning
chastity as too severe. (Mackn., partly from Benson.)

VOL. VIII. I εἰ;
Νὰ

114 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

ὑμῖν. Now follows an exhortation to liberality to-
wards Christians ; and, as necessary to the perform-
ance of that duty, the virtue of peaceful industry is
enjoined, so that they may “have to give to him that
needeth.”

9. φιλαδελφία, * love to the brethren,” chiefly ws
λόγόν δύσεως καὶ λήψεως, to use the words of the
Apostle at Phil. 4, 15.; but also extending to kind-
ness and benevolence in general. See Hebr. 13, 1.
At γράφειν must be understood ἡμᾶς, ‘there is no
need for me to write to you.” It is observed by
Theophyl., that the Apostle establishes the import-
ance of the duty in question in a two-fold way; Ist,
by hinting that it is so necessary a thing as not to
need being taught: for all things of great import-
ance are plain and obvious; @dly, he rouses their
shame, that he may excite them not to be found
worse than he had thought them.”

9. αὐτοὶ yap ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς TO ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλή-
λους, i.e. (as Rosenm. and Schleus. explain) “ ye have
learnt it by your religion.” But something more is
meant. Thus Zanch and Benson think that it also
implies following the instruction so as really to do the
thing. (See Benson’s references.) But this is some-
what precarious; and the doing is mentioned just ©
after. ‘The antients, and many eminent moderns (as
Erasm., Menoch., and Koppe) have rightly seen
that it signifies Θεοπνευστὸς, excited to give by the
Holy Spirit ; the disposition to give which they had
evinced being, according to the usual custom of the
Apostle, ascribed to that influence, which would be
the strongest motive. Agreeably to this the Pro-
phets (Is. 46, 3. Jer. 31, 34.) predicted: ‘ For all
shall be taught of God;”’ which includes the ordi-
nary as well as extraordinary operations of the .
Spirit. Here Wets. aptly cites St. Barnabas, Ep. 21.
apud Clem. Strom. 2. ὁ δὲ θεὸς, ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου κυ-
ριεύων, δώῃ καὶ ὑμῖν σοφίαν, καὶ σύνεσιν, ἐπιστήμην, γνῶ-
σιν τῶν δικαιωμάτων αὐτοῦ" Γίνεσθε οὖν θεοδίδακτοι.

10. καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε----Μακεδονίᾳ. “ And yedo show

] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 115

this love not only in your own city, but in-all Mace-
donia ;” meaning (as it is supposed) chiefly Berrhea.
The brethren of other countries are not mentioned,
because (as Benson says) “they were probably ac-
quainted with few but those of their own country ;
though their affection, no doubt, extended to all the
Christians whom they knew.”

10. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀ., περισσεύειν μᾶλλον, VIZ.
ἐν τῇ φιλαδελφίᾳ. Here, as often elsewhere, the Apos-
tle makes his commendation serve as a stimulus to
rouse them to still higher spiritual attainments.

11. φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάξειν. Some Interpreters,
as Koppe, would closely unite this with the preced-
ing. Others here commence a new section. But
this latter mode is at variance with the grammatical
construction, and the former is hardly to be justi-
fied. It is better to place a semicolon, as in our
Common Version, and to suppose that the Apostle,
according to his usual custom, engrafts on the ad-
monition to Christian beneficence another, but
closely connected with the former, that of guiet in-
dustry, without which they could not fulfil the other
duty.

The φιλοτιμεῖσθαι, to strive, aim at, imparts much
energy to the sense, and is used both in the Classical
writers and the New Testament, as Rom. 15, 20.
φιλοτιμούμενον εὐαγγελίϑεσθαι, and 1 Cor. 5, 9. φιλοτι-
μούμεθα εὐάρεστοι αὐτῷ εἶναι. The term ἡσυχάϑειν is
supposed by most Commentators to be here used in
reference to a busy, curious, meddling, pragmatical
spirit prevailing among some of the Thessalonians.
And to this it 7s sometimes opposed. See 2 Thess.
8,6, 11 and 12. Others think that it refers to politi-
cal subordination, in opposition to a seditious spirit.
Some antients, too, (and also Benson) have their spe-
culations on this subject, more ingenious than solid.
I cannot but take the word in its most extensive ap-
plication, as meant to discountenance that restless
spirit and unsettled temper, and consequent indispo-
sition to steady labour so characteristic of the Greeks,

12

116 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

and which the high mental excitement of a new re-
ligion would rather tend to increase,* especially as
the large sums bestowed by the richer on the poorer
brethren could not but weaken the principle that
spurs man to industry. So Theodoret well observes :
χορηγεῖν συνέβαινε γὰρ, τοὺς μὲν φιλοτίμως τοῖς δεομένοις
τὴν χρείαν, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τὴν τούτων φιλοτιμίαν ἀμελεῖαν τὴς
ἐργασίας" εἰκότως τοίνυν καἀκείνους ETYVETE, καὶ τούτοις
τὰ πρόσφορα συνεβούλευσε.

The phrase πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια is partly exegetical of
jovyasev. Thus Hesych. joins: ‘Brom peopel ἴδια.
πράττειν ἡσυχάξειν. To which may be added Plato
680 a. batt So ἔχων καὶ τὰ ἑαυτοῦ πράττων. Thucyd.
L. 1, 32. where are joined ἰδιοπραγμονεῖν and iouya-
ϑειν. And eisewhere "Thucyd. has ἡσυχίαν ἀπραγμόνα.
But it is especially levelled against a pragmatical and
meddling spirit. ‘*So (observes Grot.) those who
act otherwise are called ἀλλοτριοεπισκόποι, 1 Pet. 4,
15., περιεργαϑόμενοι, 2 Thess. 8,11. By the Classical
writers such are called πολυπροίγμονες. See Hom. Od.

* Not to mention that the introduction of knowledge and intel-
lectual cultivation to an uninformed mind is apt to unsettle it, and
indispose it to secular occupation, especially manual labour. Would |
to God that those who hurry forward plans for the unlimited intel-
lectual instruction of the labouring classes would think of this! In
which view it may not be improper to introduce an observation
made by me eleven years ago in an Episcopal Visitation Sermon,
p- 35. ‘* Highly does it behove us (the Clergy) to watch the possible
dangers of such experiments as are now making on the lower classes
by general education, and to take especial care that their minds be
Jargely stored with the sound and useful Christian knowledge pro-
vided for them in the Tracts of our venerable Church Society. By
thus adapting the education of the poor to their actual condition, as
well as to the peculiar exigencies of our own times, we shall form a
rising generation conscientiously attached to our laws and our
Church ; rooted in Christian faith, and zealous of these good works
~which are the surest proofs of its sincerity, and the fairest fruits of
its efficacy.” Some of the dangers to which I have there adverted
have become manifest, and others are disclosing themselves ; and
therefore it may not be unseasonable thus to repeat these representa-
tions ; especially as the above view is confirmed by the recent opi-
nion of an eminent Prelate: ‘“‘ Whether the experiment of universal
education shall be productive of good or evil depends upon the
Clergy.” Bp. Blomfield’s Charge at his Primary Visitation.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 111

21, 350. Wets. gives many examples of the phrase
τὰ ἴδια πράττειν, which signifies to mind one’s own
business. See Phryn. and T. Mag. So Xen. de So-
crat. ws χαλεπὸν ὁ βίος ᾿Αθήνησιν εἴη ἀνδοὶ βουλομένῳ. τὰ
ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν, “to quietly mind his own business.”
And so Lysias often, Porph. V. P.54. and Liban. 451.

11. καὶ ἐργάϑεσθαι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν ὑμῶν. It 15
strange that Whitby should take this to be an in-
junction to work themselves, and not leave all to their
slaves. An interpretation which, if it were admitted,
would prove too much; for as to the limitation “ and
not leave all to their slaves,’’ it will not consist with
the sense in question, which could only be, do their
own work, without putting any on their slaves, i. 6.
αὐτουργεῖν ; soin Thucyd. 1, [41. οἱ αὐτουργοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώ-
πων (where I shali have much to annotate). But
this the Apostle could not mean; nor is it likely that
the Thessalonian Christians, who were mostly of the
poorer class, employed slaves. ‘The. term ἐργάϑεσθαι
ταῖς χερσίν, evidently denotes manual labour, whether
agricultural, commercial, or handicraft, including
what we call manufactures. The ἰδίαις hints at the
contrary conduct, namely, living on the bounty of
others. So that I cannot think, with Dr. Mackn.,
that it ought to be cancelled, on the authority of
some MSS. and Fathers (for Versions are here no
evidence). We may compare Eph. 4, 28. ἐργαϑόμιενος
ταῖς χερσὶν, ἵνα ἔχη μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι, where
see the notes. Of course the admonition could only
have been intended for those whom it concerned,
namely, the labouring classes; though labour, in a
certain sense, is obligatory on all. So Benson, whose
sensible remarks on this whole passage deserve at-
tention.

12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε ---ἔχητε. Here the Apostle
suggests reasons for their so doing. ‘The first clause
is very similar to Col. 4, 5. ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς
τοὺς ἔξω, i. 6. σοφῶς περιπατεῖτε, &c. ‘The οἱ ἔξω are
those out of the pale of the Church ; as 1 Cor. 5, 12
and 13, &c. Εὐσχημόνως. The phrase εὐσχημόνως

118 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

περιπατεῖν also occurs at 1 Cor. 14, 40. Rom. 13, 18.
and signifies to act decorously and creditably. ‘his
is not, with most Commentators, to be referred solely
to what is implied in the words following καὶ μηδενὸς
χρείαν ἔχητε (though mendicity would be a great dis-
credit to the Christian profession), but to ald that
went before; for by cultivating quiet, orderly, and
industrious habits they could not but gain the good
opinion of all classes of the Heathens, as being esti-
mable in all relations of life, both political and civil.

The words καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε serve to suggest
another reason for industry, namely, the not being
beholden to any man for a subsistence. At μηδενὸς
I would supply, not ἀνθρώπου, but πράγματος. And I
would not understand it (with Theophyl. and some
moderns) of begging from Heathens (which, we may
suppose, would be little likely), but begging at all:
for even living on the alms of Christian brethren
would be discreditable in respect to the Heathens ;
since reason itself would suggest to them how much
at variance this is with the principles of virtue and
natural religion.*

13—18. The Apostle had intimated that he wished to make the
Thessalonians another visit, in order to perfect that which was

lacking in their faith. Part of what he says here seems to he what
he further wanted to teach them.f But having heard of their beha-

* It is obvious how equally this will apply to the practice of a
Church which fosters and rears up swarms of lazy drones in her
begging Friars ; a practice here even disapproved of by Theophyl.,
who occasionally countenances monkery. His words are these:
Ei yap οἱ πιστοί σκανδαλίξονται, ὅταν ἴδωσιν ἄνθρωπον ὑγιῆ ἐπαι-
τοῦντα, (διὸ καὶ Χριστεμπόρους τοὺς τοιούτους καλοῦσι) πολλῷ μᾶλ-
λον οἱ ἄπιστοι. It is only surprising how practices so incon-
sistent with the Apostle’s words should ever have been introduced.
The following sentiment of a most enlightened Jew is highly honour-
able to him, and would scarcely have been unworthy of the Apostle
himself: ‘‘ He that so gives himself to the study of the Law as to
neglect his own proper business, and live upon alms, extinguishes
the light of religion, and brings evil upon himself, and loss of life in
a future state.” Maimonides de Studio Legis, ch. 3. § 8.

+ So Theophyl.: Ei yap καὶ ἦν αὐτοῖς περὶ τούτου διαλεχθεὶς,
ὅμως" νὺν μυστήριον τι μέλλει ἀνακαλύψαι,

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IY. 119

viour on the death of their Christian friends, he would not defer
giving them this admonition, and further instruction, till he ceuld
go to them in person; but thought fit to write what is contained in
this section 13—18.

Their heathen neighbours, upon the death of their friends, hired
men to play, in a mournful manner, upon a pipe or trumpet ; and
they hired women, also, to shed tears, how], beat their breasts, tear
their hair, and the like, to increase the lamentation. These at-
tended soon after the person expired. When the corpse was car-
ried out to burial, they tore off their hair, rent their garments, cut
their flesh, especially their hands and arms, and tore their cheeks.
At the grave they set down the corpse, and went round the bier, or
round the grave after the corpse was interred; and, for some time
after, they abstained from their usual food and lived upon lentils,
pulse, beans, and some of the meanest and coarsest diet. These
were originally the customs of the Heathens ; though they were not
the same in all countries. But, in process of time, many of them
were imitated by the Jews. (See Lev. 19, 27, 25. and 21, 5. Deut.
14, 1. Is. 15,2. Jer. 16, 6, 7, and 41, 4, 5. and 48, 36, 37. Ezek.
7, 18. Amos 3, 10. Baruch 6, 31, 32. Matth. 9, 23. Spencer
de Leg. lib. p. 11, 35, ὅς, Herodot. L. 2. c. 35. and L. 6. c. 58.)
And as those customs in lamenting for the dead were origi-
nally Heathen, they are here mentioned and condemned as such.
For all the Jews, except the Sadducees, had hope of the resur-
rection of good men to an happy immortality; but the Heathens
had no such hope. As the Christians at Thessalonica kept up those
heathenish rites and customs, and sorrowed excessively upon the
death of their Christian friends, the Apostle says three things to
dry up their tears. Ist. He briefly repeats what he had already
taught them concerning the resurrection of the pious dead to an
happy immortality; in consequence of the resurrection of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and according to his frequent and express promise.
Qdly. He makes this new discovery that the last generation should
not die at all, but be, on a sudden, changed into incorruptible.
3dly. He adds another new discovery, viz. that those who are alive
at Christ’s second coming shall not anticipate the dead: but that,
when the dead are raised, both shall be taken up together to meet
the Lord.

Koppe, too, illustrates the scepe and intent of this whole portion
of Scripture in a long and laboured annotation, to which I can only
refer.

The remarks of the learned Commentator are certainly very
ingenious, and, indeed, instructive, but in some respects too fanci-
ful. They bear some resemblance to that conjecture of Saurin
(Serm, 6. No. 1.), that the desire which prevailed in Christians to
see Christ when he should appear for judgment, made them lament
those of their brethren who died, as it were, cut off from that hope;
in reference to which he assures them that they shall be on a level
with their brethren thus found alive.” But, as Doddr. observes, it
may be questioned whether on this hypothesis the Apostle does not

120 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

indirectly tell them that there was no particular room for such la-
mentations, as they themselves, and many succeeding generations,.
might die before the coming of our Lord.

13. οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾷς ἀγνοεῖν. A formula not unfre-
quent with the Apostle (as Rom. 1, 13. 11, 25. 1
Cor. 12, 1. 2 Cor. 1, 8., &c.), in which there is a
meiosis for, “ I would have you to well know and
attend to this admonition.” Περὶ τών κεκοιμημένων,
‘ respecting the dead (among you). A common
euphemism, occurring in Matt. 9, 24. Luke 8, 52.
Joh. 11, 4. 11, 18 & 14. 1 Cor. 15,20. The reading
κοιμιωμένων, found in some MSS. and Fathers, and
approved by Rosenm., is aneedless emendation. Ke-
kopypevwy signifies those who have died, the dead,
of course including all those who shall die. From
ignorance of the nature of this term Benson trifles
egregiously.

13. ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε, “ that ye be not (excessively)
grieved.” So Theodoret: οὐ παντελώς κωλύει τὴν
λυπὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν ἐκβάλλει, καὶ τῇ τῆς ἀναστά-
σεως ἐλπίδι ψυχαγωγεῖ, οἱ γὰρ ταύτην οὐκ ἔχοντες ἔχουσι
τῆς ἀμέτρου λύπης ἀπολογίαν. It is well observed by
Benson, “ that Christianity aims not at the rooting
out the passions, appetites, and afflictions ; but to mo-
derate and duly regulate them.” By the οἱ λοιποὶ are
meant those out of the pale of Christianity, whether
Heathens or Jews. Oi μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα, i. 6. (as Grot.,
Benson, and Koppe explain) “ who have not a sure
(i.e. a Christian) hope.” For the Heathens had none,
and the Jews a very faint one ; at least if we may judge
from the excessive grief which they indulged at fu-
nerals. Benson would confine ‘the οἱ λοιποὶ to the
Gentiles, and not include the Jews. But, as Grot.
and Koppe rightly observe, the term must here have
the same extent of signification as οἱ ἔξω just before.
And so it is used at Eph. 2, 3. & 4, 17. and infra
5,6. By the ἐλπίδα (I repeat) is meant a sure and
well grounded hope and expectation, and the whole
phrase must be taken in a popular sense. For (as Ben-
son observes) that even the Heathens hoped that the

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. Iv. 121

soul would survive the body, is abundantly evident
from their writings. (See more in the note of the
learned Doctor *)

14. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν---ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ. There is no
treason to take γὰρ (with Koppe and Benson) asa
particle of transition: and εἰ for ws. We have here
an argumentum ex loco parium ductum, as Crell.
says, (whom see). The construction and course of
reasoning will be sufficiently plain, if in the second
member we supply, not πιστεύομεν, but πιστεύωμεν,
and render: ‘‘ If we believe that Jesus died and rose
again, so also (must we believe) that God will raise
up those who sleep in Jesus, together with him.”
The argument is popular, and like that at 1 Cor. c.
15., where see the notes. Διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Of this
the sense above expressed seems to be the most
natural ; and it is supported by the authority of
many antients, and most moderns. And so Koppe,
who compares the διὰ to the Heb. 2 (which the

* There would be no end (he says) of transcribing passages from
Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, &c., to show that they had that hope.
The Greek and Roman Philosophers, excepting the Epicureans and
Sceptics, and a few others, believed in a future state. ‘* Indeed
(continues Dr. Benson) the vulgar had gross conceptions of the
future state, owing, ina great measure, to the mythological and
symbolical representations of the poets and philosophers, and which
they explained only to their learned hearers. And the exoteric and
esoteric philosophy had a reference only to the difference of the vul-
gar and political from the philosophical notions of a future state,
and not at all to the reality and belief in it, which was always be-
lieved, in different ways of explication, by the learned and unlearned,
by the poets and philosephers, as well as by the common people.
(See Mr. Jackson, ibid.) However, as their notions of the future
state were generally dark and cloudy, low and grovelling ; as their
best philosophers sometimes expressed themselves with great difli-
dence and hesitation, and their poets gave themselves such un-
bounded licence; the people were very much confuunded, and, at
certain intervals, ready to fear that death might prove an utter ex-
tinction of the man. That was the spirit of bondage which created
the most uneasy and distressing fears: but Christianity has dissi-
pated those fears, and brings with it the spirit of adoption, whereby
we look upon our God as our Father, who will raise us from the
dead, and put us in possession of the most pure and virtuous enjoy-

ments, and that for ever.”

122 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

Syriac has here), which often means ἐν. The διὰ
may, however, with some antients and moderns, be
taken in the sense of per; though (as Koppe ob-
serves) somewhat harshly. See the instructive note
of Benson. :

15. τοῦτο γὰρ----κοιμνηθέντας, “ For this, moreover, I
tell you, on the authority ofthe Lord, that such of
us as shall be left alive by the Lord, will not antici-
pate those who are then dead,” namely, in being
glorified. "Ev λόγῳ Kueiov. It is well observed by
Benson that St. Paul uses this phrase in allusion to
that with which the Prophets prefaced their mes-
sages (See 1 Kings 13, 17 & 18. 20, 35.), to indicate
that what he was about to say was not his own in-
vention, but a Divine revelation. In what way the
revelation was made, whether by the words of Christ
himself, or through the medium of the Holy Spirit,
we know not. Chrysost. and Theophyl. say: ῥητώς
ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου, ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνοι. Μακάριον
ἐστι διδόναι μᾶλλον ἢ λαμβάνειν. In either case it
was the word of the Lord, and consequently (as
Doddr. remarks) ‘‘ there can be no room to suppose
St. Paul mistaken in any circumstance of the ensuing
account.”

15. ἡμεῖς οἱ Savres, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι. On the sense
of ἡμεῖς οἱ ϑώντες, &c. Commentators are not agreed.
Many moderns, taking the words in their full sense,
think they express the Apostle’s belief that he and
some of them should survive until the day of the
Lord. On the other hand, the antients and most
moderns think he uses the figure κοίνωσις to denote
the Christians who should be alive at the last day.
So Theophyl. : Ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ Savres, λέγων, οὐ περὶ ἑαυ-
τοῦ φησιν (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄχρι τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἔμελλε ϑν)
ἀλλὰ τοὺς πιστοὺς λέγει" διὸ προσέθηκεν, οἱ περιλειπό-
μένοι εἰς τὴν παρούσιαν τοῦ Κυρίου, ᾿Εν γὰρ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ
προσώπῳ πάντας τοὺς τότε εὐριθησομιένους ϑώντας δηλοῖ,
Μεθόδος δὲ 6 μακάριος, ϑώντας, τὰς ψυχὰς λέγει. See
also Chrys., Gicumen., and Theodoret. On this
side of the question there is a powerful annotation

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. lV. 123

by Dr. Benson, in which he has been more successful
in showing that there is no proof that St. Paul and
the other Apostles supposed the day of judgment
was at hand (on which see also Doddr.), than in
establishing the κοίνωσις in question. I can only
refer the reader to his valuable note; and it is im-
possible for me to enter at large into so extensive a
question, and one so little connected with a critical
digest of annotation. I will only say that the κοί-
νωσις cannot (I think) be admitted, for the reasons
given by Grot. But it seems prudent to steer a
middle course between the two extremes, and sup-
pose (as we well may) that though the ἡμεῖς does
not imply that the Apostle thought he should live
till the last day, yet that he thought it possible the
last day was so near at hand that some then living
might see it, and having no certain information, he
expresses himself indefinitely. And surely (to use
the words of Doddr.) an ignorance on this point was
by no means inconsistent with a knowledge of what-
ever was necessary to the preaching of the Gospel.
Compare Mark 13, 32. and 1 Cor. 15, 51. It must,
however, be observed, that all that is here said has
reference (as at 1 Cor. 15.) to the case of the righ-
teous.

15. of περιλειπόμενοι, “© we who are survivors.”
Eis παρουσίαν, ‘unto the coming.” Od μὴ φθάσωμεν
τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, ‘ shall by no means anticipate the
dead (in our assuming glorified bodies).” Οὐ μὴ,
by no means. See the note on 1 Cor. 15. Wets.
here remarks: “ Si anime piorum, quamprimum ex
corpore excedunt, in ccelum avolant, et cum Christo
vivunt, hance doctrinam videtur nunc debuisse Pau-
lum inculcare Thessalonicensibus; imo si hac doc-
trina ex institutione Apostolorum ab initio imbuti
fuissent, concipi nequit, quomodo fieri potuerit, ut
in eam sententiam propensiores essent, que statuit,
superstites citius quam mortuos ad Christum per-
venturos.”

16, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσμιατι----οὐρανοῦ, Here

124. 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV.

(as Koppe observes) we have a description of the
solemn advent of Christ, expressed by images and
types derived from the triumphal entrance of a hu-
man king taking possession of a kingdom with an
armed force. Ἔν κελεύσματι; ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου,
καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ. Koppe and Rosenm. think
that this is for ἐν κελεύσματι διὰ φωγῆς ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ
σάλπιγγι. Which is preferable to the mode of inter-
pretation adopted by Grot., who takes ἐν κελεύσματι,
with the Vulg., in the sense in jussu, also counte-
nanced by the Syriac Translators. ‘They probably
read κελεύματι. One thing is plain, that the ἐν an-
swers to the Heb. 3, by, at; and ἐν κελεύσματι nearly
corresponds to the Classical phrase ἀπὸ κελεύσματος,
of which examples in abundance are adduced by
Wets. and others, from which it appears to have de-
noted that loud shout by which soldiers or sailors
excited themselves on rushing to battle; or by which
associated labourers encourage themselves to any
conjoint effort of strength ; or, in a general way, any
loud shout of a ‘single individual, as of a boatswain,
which was (I think) uttered with a speaking trumpet.
However, it seems prudent not to confound the three
particulars together; though to thoroughly compre-
hend the mode of their operation it were vain to
attempt, and on so awful a subject it behoves us
reverently to suppress prying curiosity. Who, for
instance, is meant by ἀρχαγγέλουϑ An archangel.
I dare not venture even to conjecture. Certainly
not (as Pierce and others suppose) Christ. Nor can
I consent, with most recent Commentators, to de-
cline the difficulty by sinking all into metaphor and
figure. Thus Benson: “ The coming of Christ, as
universal judge, will be very public and magnificent ;
and all mankind shall be suffered to appear before
him.” If I might venture to express a conjecture,
I should suggest that possibly by the κελεύσματι may
be meant some inexpressibly awful crash of thunder,
accompanied, perhaps, with a pealing roar from most
universal subterraneous convulsions, which, even in

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. 125

the ordinary course of nature, as we learn from tra-
vellers (see Humboldt on the Andes), exceed the
noise produced by the discharge of a whole park of
artillery !

16. καὶ of νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον.
By the dead in Christ are evidently meant those that
die in the faith and fear of Christ, i.e. faithful
Christians. For, as the best Commentators are
agreed, nothing is either here, or at 1 Cor. 15., said
of the wicked, dead or living (on which Mackn. has
many needless speculations) ; as the description of
their case could have been no consolation to Chris-
tians under the loss of friends. ‘These, then, it is
said, shall rise first.

17. ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς
ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα, ‘* Then we who are left
alive shall be caught up together with him to the
clouds, in order to meet the Lord in the air.” The
ἅμα σὺν is a stronger expression than ἅμα, or σὺν
singly. ’Agz. is for avasr. On the mode in which
this is to be effected Commentators variously specu-
late. At ἐν νεφέλαις Koppe supplies ὀχήσαντες (on
which may be compared Ps. 68, 4. and Is. 19, 1.).
And so most Commentators, who render: ‘ in nu-
bibus.” But I prefer, with others, zn nubes, unto the
clouds, which the nature of the preceding verb
seems to require. Unless εἰς ἀέρα be construed (as
it is done by Rosenm. and others) with avapr. But
this is a violent and unnecessary hyperbaton. Lis
ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Kugiov. A phrase plainly Hebraic
(with which Koppe compares the Heb. "348 ns),
tor ἀπαντησάντες τῷ Κυρίῳ. The being cavght up and
introduced to the Lord in the air is (as Theophy]l.
observes) a token of honour, as opposed to the state
of the wicked, who shall await the Judge below.

17. καὶ οὕτω, “ And then.” A sense common
after καὶ, on which I have before treated. Πάντοτε,
everlastingly. The expression σὺν Κυρίῳ (which, as
Theophyl. says, implies τὸ κεφαλαῖον τῶν ἀγαθών καρ-
ποῦσθα!) denotes participation in kingdom, glory, and

126 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IV. V.

felicity. See Joh. 14,2 & 3. 17, 29. 2 Tim. 2, 12.
Rom. 8, 17. It may, however, be collected from
these words (as Whitby thinks) that even the souls
of the faithful are not with the Lord, or in his ce-
lestial presence before the resurrection.

18. ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ολλήλους ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις,
* So then (this being the case) console each other
(ye who are troubled) with these (comforting) say-
ings and assurances.”

CHAP. V.

VERSE 1. περὶ δὲ τών χρόνων---γράφεσθαι. As the
Apostle had, in the last section, treated of the second
coming of Christ, of the resurrection of the pious
dead, of the transformation of the living, and of
their being all made happy with Christ; it would be
likely enough that persons of too curious and inqui-
sitive a temper would be ready to inquire (as our
Lord’s disciples did, Matt. 24, 3.), “ Tell us, when
shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of
Christ’s coming, and of the end of the world?” He
therefore (ver. 1—11.) endeavours to divert their
minds from such an improper enquiry to something of
more moment; viz. that they should live such an holy
life as to be always prepared for that coming of
Christ, which, whenever it happens, will surprise the
wicked world, but be unspeakable joy to the righ-
teous. (Benson.) .

It is not, Koppe thinks, necessary to nicely discri-
minate between the senses of χρόνων and καίρων ;
since they are often confounded in the New Testa-
ment. (See Schleus. Lex. on these words.) Yet as
xaipos does sometimes, in the New Testament, de-
note the tempus opportunum, or the critical season
for doing any thing, so, I think, with most Commen-
tators, it may have that sense here. I would ren-
der: “ Of the time and exact season of Christ’s
coming.” See Pole’s Syn. Οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφεσ-
θαι. On this syntax see the note supra 4,9. ‘The

1 THESSALONIANS, -CHAP. V. 127

᾽

expression signifies, “ it is unnecessary ;” and per-
haps it may be put by meiosis (as the antients and
Zanch think) ἐξ were useless, nay improper, περιττὸν
καὶ ἀσύμῷορον. .

2. αὐτοὶ yap ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε, “ Ye yourselves know
all that is necessary, and what our Lord hath told
you.” Ὅτι ἡ ἡμέρα Kupiou—épyerosr. By the day of
the Lord is not meant (as Hamm. and Schoettg. sup-
pose) that of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor (as
Whitby) of the destruction of Jerusalem and also
the last advent, but solely the latter. In οἴδατε
there is an allusion to what is recorded in Matt. 24,
43.,and elsewhere. ἔρχεται, “ is to come.”

3. ὅταν yap λέγωσιν---ἐκφύγωσιν. The Apostle now
proceeds to illustrate the effect of the sudden advent
of the Lord: but in order to make his remarks the
more impressive,* he adverts solely to its effect on
the secure, careless, and unprepared, i. e. the wicked.
And so our Lord speaks of it, Matt. 24, 38., with
which compare Jer. 49, 24. See Benson.

At εἰρήνη and ἀσφάλεια must be understood ἐστι.
See Ez. 13, 10. The ὄλεθρος signifies not so much
destruction, as perdition, and that judicial; as ap-
pears from the nature of the thing, and from 2 Thess.
1, 9. ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον. 1 Tim. 5, 9. εἰς ὄλεθρον καί
ἀπώλειαν. Hesych. ὄλεθρον, εἰς ἄδην. “ΓΠοοάογοί
well paraphrases : τῆς θεογνωσίας τὴν αἰκτῖνα δεξάμιενοι,
φεύγετε τὰ τοῦ σκότου ἐπιτηδεύματα, ἵνα μὴ ἐξαπιναίως
ὑμῖν ἐπενεχθῇ τῆς τιμωρίας ἡ ψῆφος.

Αἰφνίδιος, sudden, unexpected. A very frequent
sense ; so that the examples adduced by the Philo-
logists are superfluous. Compare Rom. 13, 12.

4, 5. ὑμεῖς---καταλάβῃη. The comparison of Christ’s

* And also, it should seem, to give a hint with respect to the fate
of the wicked at the great day, who were not adverted to in the pre-
ceding passage on the resurrection, &c. It is here remarked by
Koppe : “ Cum hoc extremo Christi adventu, necessario conjunctus
fore credebatur hostium ejus interitus; similitudine iterum a rege
humano sumptA, qui regno feliciter occupato imperii sui rebelles
‘peenis ac suppliciis multare solet.”

128 τ 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

sudden advent to the coming of a thief in the night,
seems to have suggested the occasion of expressing
by phrases taken from the shining brightness of light
and day, the mind of Christians fully prepared by
his Apostolical instruction for this awful event.
(Koppe.)

The Apostle having compared our Lord’s sudden
and unexpected coming to judgment to a thief’s
coming in the night, from thence takes occasion to
call such as were ignorant of the Divine will, children
of night and of darkness ; and, by way of opposition,
such as were illuminated with the knowledge of it,
children of light and of day: and this allusion he
carries on, ver. 4—10. (Benson.)

Ὑμεῖς is emphatical; and σκότου signifies wilful
ignorance of divine truths, with an adjunct notion
of the vice and hardness of heart accompanying it.
So Theophyl.: οὐ σκοτεινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ἔχετε βίον.
The Apostle’s meaning is not very obscure; though in
the use of the metaphor there is somewhat of confu-
sion. Rosenm. explains thus: “ΤῸ those who are
already in light, light is not troublesome and unex-
pected; so neither to you Christians will that day
be unwelcome or unexpected, in which every one’s
life shall be made manifest.” I would here compare
Cic. ad Attic. 10,8. Non fuisset et illa nox tam
acerba Atricano, sapientissimo viro, non tam dirus
ille dies Sullacas calidissimo viro C. Mario, si nihil
utrumque eorum fefellisset.

From the day of the Lord the Apostle then passes
to the general notion of day, 5—8. In the plural
υἱοὶ and φῶτος, the best Commentators recognise a
Hebraism, by which 8 (son) expresses any sort of
close connection and strong similarity; so that by
υἱοὶ Φωτὸς are meant those endued with the light of
the Gospel. So υἱοὶ ἀπειθείας at Eph. 2, 2., and
ἀπωλείας at 2 Thess. 2, 3.

6, 7. In these verses is continued the allusion to
night and day, of which the former is given to in-
dulgence, by the sensual to drunkenness, &c.; and

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. + 129

by all to security and sleep. So Benson: “ The
Apostle, having compared Christ’s coming to that
of a thief in the night, he then represented bad men
as children of darkness, liable to be surprised and
destroyed ; and good Christians, as children of light
and of day. That led him to take notice how men
commonly spend the night, in sleeping or drunken-
ness. From thence he took occasion to recommend
to Christians, who are children of day, to behave
accordingly, to watch and be sober.”

The best Commentators are agreed that καθευδ.
answers to the term stertere of the Latin; q.d. ‘ Let
us not doze and nod in thoughtlessness and vice, but
let us watch and be wakeful and sober.” Tpyyop. is
equivalent to ἀγρυπνεῖν in Luke 31, 36. where see
the note. The metaphorical sense here of νήφειν is
too well known to need illustration. One example
will suffice. Plut. 841. νήφειν λέγων καὶ ἀγρυπνεῖν,
ὅπως ἔξη τοῖς ἄλλοις μεθύειν καὶ καθεύδειν. Both words
are joined in 1 Pet.5,8. Koppe observes, that after
removing the metaphor, the sense of the two ex-
pressions will be as follows: “ sollers et strenuus
esse in bene honestéque agendo; et in devitandis
vitiis ac sceleribus quibusvis esse diligens.” And
he renders the words of ver. 7.: ‘* Negligens esse in
recté agendo, vitiisque indulgere, homines tantum
eos decet, qui dei voluntatem de eo, quod agendum
aut omittendum sit, non fuerunt edocti.”

With respect to the νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν, it may be
observed, with Raphel, that the being drunken in
the day time was thought the greatest disgrace.
And Wets. cites Polyb. Exc. Leg. 8. ἐκπαθῆ δὲ yeyo-
νότα καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἀκρατοποσίας, Wore Kal μεθ᾿ ἡμέραν
πλεονάκις μεθύοντα καταφανῆ γενέσθαι τοῖς φίλοις. Apu-
16]. scortis et diurnis potationibus exercitatus. To
which 1 add Athen. 433 B. οὐκ ἐστ᾽ ἀποτάκτου, Ἡ μέρᾳ
οἰνῶώσαι σῶμα ἀμέτροισι πότοις. Hor. Sat. 1. Ebrius
et, magnum quod dedecus, obambulet Ante nocten
facibus. Plato Com. ap. Athen. 279 a. πότους ἐωθί-

VOL. VIII. K |

130 _ 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. VY.

yous Πίνει διὰ σε. Soalso 2 Pet. 2, 13. ἡδονὴν ἡγούμιε-
νοι THY ἐν ἡμιέρᾳ τρυφὴν.

8, ἡμεῖς δὲ---ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας. ‘The Apostle now
glides into another and favourite comparison (com-
pare Eph. 6, 14. and Is. 11, 5.59, 17.), taken from
armour, sheathed in which, and prepared for battle,
the soldier encounters all perils, till he gain the
victory. Then he shows how Christians ought to
prepare themselves for that day, namely, by faith,
love, and hope. (Koppe and Rosenm.)

Πίστις, firm persuasion of the Messiahship of Jesus,
and constancy in supporting it under calamity and
persecution. ᾿Αγάπη, “love and good will to all
men, both Christians and others. ᾿Ελπίδα σωτηρίας,
‘a lively hope of tinally obtaining the eternal re-
wards promised to Christian obedience in the Mes-
siah’s kingdom.” See Benson. And compare Hebr.
6, 19. The article at éar. and σωτ. would have
been better; as in Jos. 1319, 8. ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν
ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας.

The ratio of the allusions in the breast-plate and
helmet, it is unnecessary to minutely discuss; since
all is plain and obvious, and it may suffice to refer to
the parallel passage of Eph. 6, 11.; and I will only
add that the words of the present coufirm my cri-
ticism on those of that passage, that the Apostle
only intended to represent the defensive supports of
the Gospel; and this will be the best answer to the
question often proposed and anxiously debated, why
the Apostle has here altered the particulars of the
comparison, and somewhat varied their application ?

9, 10. ‘These verses, Koppe observes, are both
especially to be referred to the ἐλπ. σωτηρίας at ver.
8.; and he gives the following as the general sense :
“spe futura felicitatis vere et jure suo possunt
Christiani animum inter calamitates erigere, quippe
voluntate et promissis divinis eadem nitatur.” With
the ἔθετο Koppe and Rosenm. compare a similar use
of the Hebr. SW and N53, appoint and destine, Gen.
17, 5. Jer. 1, 5.’Opyiv, punishment; as 1,10. The

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. lor

περιποίησιν is for εἰς τὸ περιποιεῖσθαι, and accommo-
dated to ὀργὴν. The phrase, however, is often used,
as 2 Thess. 2, 14. and Hebr. 10, 39. Benson ex-
plains: “ The design of God in sending his son into
this world, was not to condemn the world, but that
the world through him might be saved. He did not
reveal the Gospel unto mankind, that they might
sin with the greater aggravation, and so be the more
severely punished. But the motive was love, and
the design was mercy. And he hath appointed none
to wrath but such as wilfully and obstinately refuse
his gracious offers, and persist in vice and wicked-
ness.” See his numerous Scriptural proofs. ‘Theo-
phyl. draws the following conclusion: ᾿Οφείλομεν οὖν
ermigew ἐν κινδύνοις χρηστὰ καὶ μεγάλα. Hi yap ἐπι-
στεύσαμεν ὅτι τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἐλπίϑω-
μεν ὅτι καὶ πολλῴ μᾶλλον τῶν κινδύνων τούτων ἐξέλειται.
With respect to the words τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ---ϑήσωμεν,
I would observe that the antients rightly considered
yeny. and καθ. as put for ϑώμεν and ἀποθάνωμεν ; and
they notice the antanaclasis. ‘This, too, is supported
by the best modern Commentators, of whom Benson
has given the most satisfactory account of the sense.
It is, therefore, strange that Whitby should have
taken καθ. in the physical sense, and rendered γρηγορῶ-
μὲν, “be on our guard.” Benson explains the words
ἵνα----ϑήσωμιεν as if they denoted the plan of salvation
by Christ; which is not the case; and, what is
worse, in laying down that plan the Doctor has omit-
ted the fundamental doctrine of the atonement, and
lowers the whole almost down to the level of
Socinianism. The Apostle, however (as the best
Commentators are agreed), only meant to say that
whether we be alive, or dead, at that day, it matters
not; the living with Christ, or enjoying eternal
happiness with him (see supra 4, 17.), shall be equally
our portion. So that (as Theoph. infers) ‘‘ we may
fearlessly meet dangers, or even death; for even if
we die, we shall Jive, as he who so loved us as to die |
for us, liveth.”
K 2

132 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

11. διὸ παρακαλείτε---ποιεῖτες Here we have a
repetition, per epanalepsin, of what was said at 4, 18. ;
the intermediate matter on the suddenness of Christ’s
coming, and the necessity of previous preparation,
being in some measure parenthetical and digressive.
In resuming, however, the thread of the discourse,
the Apostle uses a metaphorical expression of great
beauty, in which there is an architectural figure,
such as in 1 Cor. 8, 1. 10, 23. 14, 17. and Jude 20.,
where see the notes. This edifying one another (as
Benson says) was, either by increasing one another’s
knowledge, strengthening their faith and hope, or
promoting | their holiness.

Εἰς τὸν ἕνα is for ἀλλήλους : an idiom rare in the
Classical writers ; : though Kypke cites Dionys. Hal.
p. 154, ὁπότε ὑπὲρ ἀμαρτύρου συναλλάγματος ἀμφίλογόν
τι γένοιτο ἑνὶ πρὸς ἔνα.

11. καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε, 4. d. “I need hardly have
given the exhortation, since ye already do this.”
We may observe that this praise, mixed with the
exhortation, is delicately thrown in, to make it the
more effectual. Of which I have noted an example
in Aristid. T. 1. 232, 11. σχεδὸν δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ὃ
ποιεῖτε παρήνεσα. Grot. compares the adage: σπεὺυ-
δόντα καὶ αὐτὸν ὀτρύνω.

12—14. Having exhorted them to comfort and
edify one another, the Apostle adds other such ex-
hortations as he found, from Timothy, were necessary.
Lest they should imagine they had no occasion for
religious teachers,* he enjoins them to show all due
respect to their spiritual pastors and masters; and
to these he hints their reciprocal duties to their
people. (See Grot. and Benson.)

12. ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς, “ we entreat you.” See 4, 1.
Kidéevat. Grot. compares respicere, spectare, cise

* So Theophyl. : iva μὴ γομίσωσιν ὅτι εἰς τὸ διδασκάλου ἀξίωμα
αὐτοὺς ἀνήγαγε, καὶ κατεπαρθῶσιν ἐκείνων, φησίν" ὅτι εἰ καὶ ὑμῖν
ἐπέτρεψα τὴν ἀλλήλων οἰκοδομὴν, πλὴν παρακαλῶ ἵνα ἐκείνους διὰ
τιμὴ exnre’ πολλὰ γὰρ οἱ διδάσκαλοι ὑπομένειν ἀναγεάξονται δυσ-
᾿ χερῆ, ἃ ἡ τιμὴ αὐτοῖς μετρίως γοῦν ἐπικουφιεῖ.

1. THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 133

Baerroy, and spectabilis. The recent Commentators
explain it rationem habere. I conceive that the
principal sense is that expressed by Theophyl., διὰ
τιμῆς ἔχειν. So Hesiod, Op. 187. Some render it
show gratitude to. The term indeed seems to in-
clude a mixture of respect, obedience, and gratitude
shown especially in making due provision for their
wants.

As to the persons of whom this is to be understood, the Apostle
has been thought to advert to three distinct classes of spiritual pas-
tors, viz. (to use the words of Mackn.) 1. Τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν,
Those who laboured among them, in the works of the ministry, by
preaching, catechising, and dispensing the sacraments. 2. Τοὺς
προισταμένους ὑμῶν, Those who presided over them ; that is, who in
their public meetings for worship showed in what order individuals
were to exercise their spiritual gifts ; and appointed the places and
times of these meetings. 3. Τοὺς νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς, Those who
observed the behaviour of individuals, and gave to such as were
faulty the admonitions and reproofs necessary to their amendment.
“For vovOeréw (says he) signifies to admonish with reproof. See
Tit. 3, 10. He thinks it probable that this office belonged to the
Bishops. As to κοπιῶντας, it is plain that, from the nature of the
subject τῷ λόγῳ must be supplied. It is expressed in 1 Tim. 5, 17.
The προϊστάμενοι are supposed by the best Commentators to be thie
same with προεστῶτες, ἐπισκόποι, πρεσβύτεροι, ποιμένες (Compare
1 Tim. 5, 17. and 8, 2. and Eph. 4, 11.), like the Jewish Archisy-
nagogi. Koppe, however, maintains that the terms γουθετ. and
προΐϊσταμενοι are not meant of various kinds of Presbyters (some
Bishops, and others teachers, See Acts 20, 17. compared with 28,
Phil. 1, 1. 1 Tim. 3, 2. seq.), but of the same persons comprehended,
in this verse, under the more general term κοπιῶντες. Kor. is
indeed a very general term to denote “labouring in the promul-
gation of the Gospel ;” as Rom. 16, 6 & 12. 1 Cor. 15, 10. 16, 16.
Gal. 4, 11. Phil. 2, 16. Col. 1, 29. and 1 Tim. 4,10. 5,17. But,
upon the whole, I see not how we can come to any determinate
opinion on the nature of the ecclesiastical government of the Thes-
salonian church, for want of more exact information than we
possess. Yet it seems probable that by κοπιῶντες are denoted
those who occupied the ordinary offices of teaching, and by the zpoic-
τάμενοι, the rulers of the church; and that νουθετοῦντας is a ge-
neral term applicable to both. I certainly see not how we can
here recognise any Bishops or Bishop properly so called. Nor does
there seem, as yet, to have been any Bishop appointed. ‘ It was
common (says Benson) with St. Paul to collect a church, and im-
part some spiritual gifts and miraculous powers unto them; and
then leave them for some time, without ordaining Bishops and
deacons among them. Acts 14, 1. 21, 23. 1 Tim. 5, 22. Tit. 1, 5.
and many other places. How long they continued in that first state
was according to circumstances. But, whenever things were found

134 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. y.

to be in a proper situation, then the Apostle, or some of the Evan-
gelists, his assistants, went and ordained some of the elders, or first
converts, to be Bishops, and others to be Deacons.” And so Whitby
observes, that the Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, whoa
were all extraordinary offices, are reckoned among those whom God
had settled in the church, 1 Cor. 12, 24., and Christ ascending up
on high, had given for the edification of his body. Eph. 4, 11, 12.
“Some of these Prophets and Teachers (continues he} were in most
churches, as at Antioch (Acts 13, 1.) and officiated in them (ver.3.)
at Rom. (12, 6 ἃ 7.), at Corinth (1 Cor. 14.) andat Galatia. (See
note on 6, 1.) Some of them were itinerants, sent by the Apostles,
or Prophets, to teach other churches, and by the holy spirit sepa-
rated to that work (Acts 13, 2,3 ἃ 4.). Exhorting and confirming
the churches where they came, as being Prophets authorized so to
do (Acts 16, 12.), and travelling up and down for the converting
and establishing of the Gentiles (3 Joh.7 ἃ 8. See note on 1 Cor.
12, 28.). Of one of these two kinds of Prophets and Teachers, and
spiritual men, the Apostle may here be understood.” It is impos-
sible for me to enter into so extensive a question here; but it seems
highly probable that among these Episcopi one was appointed te
preside, with the sole power of ordination and supreme government,
so as to be what we calla Bishop. Which brings it to the same
thing (though by a different way) as what the Commentators above
mentioned contend for. See the note on Phil. 1, 1.

13. καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐκπερισσοῦ ἐν ἀγάπη.
This does not simply signify ‘ love them ;” as many
explain. It answers to the Classical phrase περὶ
πλείονος yyeiobas, or ποιεῖσθαι, make much of, hold in
honour. Yet something more is meant: and I can-
not but consider the clause as consisting of two
blended into one, and I would render it, “ make
much of, respect and love them.” Which, of course,
includes providing for their honourable sustenance ;
and this seems to be suggested by the διὰ τὸ ἔργον.
Though even the honouring might include it. ‘Thus
(as Koppe remarks) at 1 Tim. 5, 17. we have τιμᾷν
τὸν προεστώτοι, which plainly signifies, “ provide him
with sustenance.” See also Matt. 15,4. The ἔργον
denotes the work and office, whether of instruction,
or of government, which they exercise.

13. εἰρηνεύετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς. The reading αὐτοῖς, the
rulers, though very specious, can by no means be
admitted, and seems to have arisen from emendation.
The common reading yields the most extensive, and

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 135

therefore the best sense (for it includes the other) ;
yet, I think, the words are usually too much limited
in the explanation, as we had here only an admoni-
tion to the congregation at large. ““ For (says
Benson, from Est.) if the people quarrel among
themselves, their Pastors cannot have much esteem,
nor do much good.” Which is very true: but not, I
think, ¢he truth meant by the Apostle. ‘The admoni-
tion was (I conceive) intended both for the rulers and
the congregation, on whom it especially enjoined
the cultivation of peace and concord, namely, by
making mutual sacrifices for that purpose, or, as the
Apostle says at Eph. 4, 3. ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν
ἀγάπη: σπουδάϑοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος
ἐν τῷ συνδεσμῷ τῆς εἰρήνης.

14. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ spas, ἀδελφοὶ, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς
ἀτάκτους. The Apostle (as usual) after the general
precepts, subjoins such as are most suitable to those
times and places.

On the persons here addressed the Commentators
are not agreed. ‘The antients and some moderns,
as Est., Zanch, and Benson, think the spiritual
rulers. Others, the people only. (See Doddr.) But
this, from the nature of the expressions, seems very
improbable. The former opinion is undoubtedly
the best founded ; but we may very well suppose
both to be meant; though chiefly the spiritual rulers.
The same word ἀδελφοὶ being used, as at ver. 12.,
when addressing the people, will prove nothing ;
since the Apostle so perpetually varies his phraseo-
logy. Besides, the term νουθετεῖτε, (the same as that
used in the preceding verse of the rulers,) shows that
they are chiefly had in view. Moreover, the paxpo-
θυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας seems especially appropriate to
ministers ; since, in order to preserve peace with
their congregations, such must often exercise this
μακροθυμία. And the spiritual consolation and sup-
port may, indeed, be administered to the faint-hearted
and weak by others as well as the ministers ; though
surely by them most efficaciously. And (as Benson

130 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V..

observes) the instructions or admonitions given by
parents to their children, or by private Christians to
one another, are not inconsistent with those given
by ministers to the body of the Christian people.”

Novéer. imports such reproof and admonition as is
calculated to recal any one toa right hand, and pro-
duce reformation; as Acts 20, 31. Rom. 15, 11.
1 Cor. 14, 14., where see the notes. This implies
that it shall not be intemperate or harsh, but in the
spirit of brotherly kindness. So 2 Thess. 3, 16.
νουθετεῖτε ws ἀδελφὸν. And so the Psalmist: “ Let
not their precious balms break my head.” On the
term νουθ. see the learned note of Krebs.

᾿Ατακτοὺς, unruly, disorderly. A term properly
used of military and political subordination, but of
general application ; as will appear from Wetstein’s
numerous examples. It here has reference to spiri-
tualsubordination, and also (as Benson thinks) being
idle, neglecting their own proper business, being
burthensome to others, and meddling with affairs
which did not belong to them. See 1 Tim. 5, 13.
1 Thess. 4, 11 ἃ 12., and more especially 2 Thess.
3, 6-—12.

Ὀλιγοψύχους, the faint-hearted, pusillanimous, pu-
κρόψυχοι, aS opposed to peyaaup. The term often
occurs in the Sept. It here signifies those who are
labouring under, and ready to sink under calamity.
By the ἀσθ. are meant the weak in the faith, scru-
pulous in some respects, and wavering in others; as
Rom. 14, 1. τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα, τῇ πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθε.
See also 14, 15. 1 Cor. 8,7. The term ἀντέχεσθαι
signifies, properly, ‘‘ to hold up by sustaining with
the hand ;” but is often used metaphorically. By the
πάντας Benson understands all men, both Christians
and those not so; as 3, 12., and the next verse.
And this is confirmed by Theodoret and Gicumen.
Benson remarks on the necessity for this patience
and long-suffering in Pastors; since the prejudices
of some, the stupidity of others, and the infirmities
of all, call for tenderness and great patience.”

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 137

15—28. It is observed, by Benson, that “ the prac-
tical directions here given are some of them suited
only to a church which had the χαρίσματα, OF spiri-
tual gifts; the others suited to all Christians.” Com-
pare “Rom. 1, 17—19.

15. ὁρᾶτε μὴ τις κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ τινι ἀποδώ, “ See,
mind,” &c. It is plain that this address is not con-
fined to the rulers, but meant for the people at large,
i.e. both the classes above addressed, the pastor and
the people. On the subject of retaliation 1 would refer
to Max. Tyr. Diss. εἰ τὸν ἀδικήσαντα ἀνταδικητέον. I
would also compare Thucyd. 1, 498, 3. Bekk , where,
among other traits of the Athenians, is the following:
drryumaione bed TE τινα περὶ πλείονος ἦν ἢ αὐτὸν μὴ προ-
παθεῖν" aud Soph. Cid. c. 230. οὐδενὶ μοιριδίαι τίσις
ἔρχεται ὧν προπάθη τὸ τίνειν ἁπάτα δ᾽ ἀπάταις ἑτέραις
ἑτέρα παραβαλλόμενα πόνον οὐ χάριν ᾿ἀντιδίδωσιν ἔχειν.

Διώκετε τὸ ἀγαθὸν, “ pursue, aim at, study to
do.” This is a stronger term than ποιεῖν. With
respect to the ἀγαθὸν, it is not to be taken with any
philosophical refinements, or in the theological sense
holiness, but merely in a popular one, as signifying
kindness, &c., in opposition to evil of any kind. By
the πάντας must be understood men universally,
non-Christians as well as Christians, who are meant
by the ἀλλήλους.

16. πάντοτε yaipere. It is strange that many
learned Commentators (as Koppe and Rosenm.)
should recognize in these words no more than a sort
of good bye! ‘* may you ever be prosperous and
happy.” And that the judicious Doddr. should
think this may be the sense I am surprised. No-
thing more frigid, low, and creeping was ever de-
vised by those who labour under the cacoethes inno-
vandi. The words are, as the Prince of Interpreters
has shown, closely connected with the words pre-
ceding. linus; after tracing the connexion, he ob-
serves (pet) 15) Στὸν γὰρ τοιαύτην ἔχωμεν ψυχὴν,
ὥστε μηδένα ἀμύνεσθαι, anand πάντας εὐεργετεῖν, πόθεν,
εἰπέ μοι, τὸ τῆς λύπης κέντρον παρεισελθεῖν δυνήσεται ; 6

138 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

γὰρ οὕτω χαίρων τῷ παθεῖν κακῶς, ὡς Kal εὐεργεσίαις
ἀμύνεσθαι τὸν πεποιηκότο. κακῶς, πόθεν δυνήσεται ἀνιαθήη-
ναι λοιπόν; καὶ πώς οἷόν τε τοῦτο, ῴησιν; av ἐθέλωμεν,
δυνατόν. And so all the best Commentators since his
time. It is plain that in those conflicts which the
competitions of the world perpetually bring upon
us, there is especially put to the proof our Christian
fortitude in bearing adversity, (Compare 12, 12. and
2 Cor. 6, 10.); since on the event of these competi-
tions worldly prosperity and adversity must necessa-
rily depend. On the rejoicing in adversity see Ben-
son, and compare his references ; though, I think,
the Doctor might have spared the information, which
few can be supposed to need, “ that we are noé to
rejoice or give thanks for our own sins, or the sins of
other men.”

17, 11. ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθες The modern
Commentators here recognize no connexion: though
it was, I think, correctly traced by Chrys., who ob-
serves that this shows the mode by which we may
attain unto the last mentioned grace. For, as Theo-
phyl. observes (from Chrys.), he who is accustomed
to hold converse with God, and render thanks to
Him for every thing, (as happening for his good,)
will, it is evident, feel perpetual joy.

The ἀδιαλείπτως is usually regarded as an hyper-
bole, and interpreted of praying at all the set times
of prayer. So Whitby. But this seems too formal.
The expression rather signifies, ‘“‘ without any inter-
mission of the habit of prayer, either at those set
times which a conformity with external decorum
may enjoin, or a regard fo our individual wants, or
the peculiarity of circumstances, whether of prospe-
rity or adversity, may, require. Compare Eph. 6,
18. and Col. 1, 3.* As to precepts concerning

* Benson, indeed, observes, ‘ that it is unquestionably right to
observe the Lord’s day every week, as the stated season for public
worship, and particularly for prayer; to be frequently sending up
pious breathings and holy ejaculations ; to continue instant in
prayer, though we should not receive an answer immediately; and

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. v. 139

prayer, it were needless to adduce them. See
Locke’s Common Place Book. -

The ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε seems to be explanatory
of the preceding. At ἐν παντὶ must be supplied
χρόνῳ, τόπῳ, πράγματι, &c., “in all places and cir-
cumstances.” So Whitby, “ for sparing and pre-
venting, for common and extraordinary, general and
special, past and present, temporal and spiritual mer-
cies ; not only for prosperous and grateful, but also
for afflicting providences, for chastisements and
‘reasonable corrections.” ‘Thus (we may conclude)
all things will work for our good in the end, serving
to make us holy here and happy hereafter.”

18. τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἴ. εἰς ὑμάς.
Here we have (I think) a popular form of expres-
sion, importing, “ for this is the will of God (signified
by Jesus Christ) in regard to you; this is what God
is pleased to order by Jesus Christ to be performed
by you.” The τοῦτο regards both the χαίρετε and
the προσεύχεσθε, considered as forming one maxim.
See the note on ver. 16.

19—22. These verses are regarded by Koppe as
forming an independent portion, and having re-
spect to the προφητεία and the other spiritual yepic-
para not unfrequently granted to the Thessalonians
also; as appears from 1, 5. 4, 8. Χο. The antient
Commentators unite in taking τὸ πνεῦμα for τὸ χά-
ρισμα ; and some, as Gicumen., take the expression
τὸ πνεῦμα px σβέννυτε of suppressing the exercise of
those gifts by turning away from and disallowing
them. And so several moderns, as Whitby. But
this seems harsh, Others, as Chrys. and Theoph., and
most moderns (as Grot.) understand it of quenching
more especially to be careful always to preserve an habitual frame
of mind, suited to the performance of this duty of prayer. But
none of these are here enjoined.” Itis scarcely possible to lay down
a position more at variance with truth than this; as if family
prayer alone were here intended! The Doctor’s remarks, how-
ever, on the exercise of this highly important duty are deserving of

attentive perusal, See also the note of Dr. Gloucester Ridley ap.
D'Oyley.

140 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

or not supporting them in themselves, namely, by neg-
lecting to use them, or by not using them aright. It
is observed by Grot., that these gifts being originally
imparted in the form of fre, are therefore aptly com-
pared to it, and are very properly said to be quenched;
as here ;* or to be stirred up; as 2 Thess. 1, 6. See
also 4, 12. There is here, as Benson rightly re-
marks, only an allusion to the first method of impart-
ing them ; since, in the case of the Thessalonians and
others, the gifts were not imparted by an immedi-
ate effusion from heaven. As to how they might be
quenched, he observes, that pride, idleness, neglect-
ing to make use of their spiritual gifts and miracu-
lous powers, or attempting to make a wrong use of
them, and all vice in general, tended thereto; but
particularly apostacy from the Christian religion.
The spiritual gifts (continues he), like the fire upon
the altar, could be kindled only from heaven; but
might be stirred up, fed with fuel, or quenched by
men. On the other hand, reading the Scriptures,
fervent, frequent prayer, an orderly and diligent
use of their gifts and powers, to the conversion, in-
struction, or edification of others, joined with an
holy life, was the way to stir or blow up the sacred
fire, to preserve, and (if God saw proper) to in-
crease in them the miraculous gifts.” To the objec-
tions of those who suppose that all those particulars
relate to the duties of Christians in general, main-
taining that otherwise these two verses would be a
neglect of method, and a starting from the subject,
he has well replied. ‘It is (says he) no more a
starting from the subject than 1 Cor. 13. The Apos-
tle wrote solely to the Thessalonians, and had their
circumstances in view. Other churches or persons

* Wets. has several examples of the phrase πνεῦμα σβεννύναι.
But few are apposite; most of them signifying merely the dropping
or lowering of a wind; others, the quenching of the spirit or life,
like a lamp for want of oil, or by the excess of it. The only apposite
one is Plut. Pyth. 402 B. τοῦ πνεύματος παντάπασιν ἀπεσβεσμένου
καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως ἐκλελοιπυῖας.

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 141

are to apply those particulars to themselves as far as
their circumstances are similar, and no further.”
All this is very true ; and yet the admonition may be
applied, mutatis mutandis, to those influences of the
spirit which were in after times given to every man
to profit withal.

Most recent Foreign Commentators, as Noesselt
and Rosenm., explain away the sense of πνεῦμα.

20. προφητείας py ἐξουθενεῖτε. This seems to me to
be meant as a direction not to quench the Spirit in
others: for προφητεία, being one of the principal of
the gifts, seems to be put for all of them generally.
As to the sense of the term here, on that I need not
enlarge, since it is the same as at 1 Cor. 12—14.
where I have fully discussed its meaning. Those
celebrated chapters on the supernatural gifts are well
said by Benson to be a full comment upon this brief
direction. See also Phil. 1, 1—16. Eph. 4, 1—11.
Rom. 12, 3—6. Koppe very well annotates thus:
“ Admonitio scripta lis, qui, ut ipsi singulari hujus-
modi spiritus divini afflatu destituebantur, omniaque
ex deliberandi et cogitandi subtilitale metiebantur,
ita alios divine religionis veritatem magis sentiendo
quam tranquillé ratiocinando intelligentes contem-
nere, irridere, Fanaticorum nomine contumeliosé
appellare non verebantur.”

Q1. πάντα δοκιμάϑετε τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε. Griesb. in-
troduces ἃ δὲ after the πάντα, on the authority of
several MSS. and some Fathers (for Versions are
here no evidence). But nothing can be more uncri-
tical; since for its insertion we can easily account*
(especially as most of the MSS. are such as have been
systematically altered), but not for its omission, espe-
cially in so very many MSS. As to the reading δοκι-
μάϑοντες, which is supported by several MSS., Edi-
tions, Fathers, and the Syriac Version, and is ap-
proved by Benson, it is plainly ex emendatione, and

* Namely, from a wish to shew its connection with the pre-
ceding.

142 ] THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

was meant to show that the ravra—xareéyere are not
separate directions, but closely connected. In short
the common reading is sufficiently defended by the
asyndeton, which is evidently aimed at throughout
the whole passage. I would point: πάντα doxipagere,
τὸ καλὸν KATEYETE.

The antient and all the best modern Commenta-
tors are agreed that the πάντα must not be taken
generally (as it is done by some injudicious Com-
mentators, nay, even Vorst., who understood it of
opinions, as if δόγματα were to be supplied; which
would be a most arbitrary ellipsis), but be restricted
to the preceding, i. e. all that is said by those called
Prophets concerning the exercise of the spiritual
gifts. So Theophyl. explains: καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ, καὶ τὰ
ἀληθῆ μετὰ δοκιμασίας κρίνετε, καὶ τότε τὸ δόξαν ὑμῖν κα-
λὸν, τουτέστι, τὰς ἀληθεῖς προφητείας, κατέχετε, του-
τέστι, τιμᾶτε, διὰ φροντίδος ποιεῖσθε... And Theodoret:
ῥᾷδιον ὑμῖν διαγνῶναι, τινα μὲν τὰ τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος,
τινα δὲ τὰ τοῦ ἐναντίου" τὰ τῆς ἀπατῆς τοίνυν ἀποκρίναν-
τες, τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κατέχετε. ‘This (as Grot. and the
best modern Commentators are agreed) relates to
the διακρίσεις τῶν πνεύματων mentioned at 1 Cor. 12,
10. and 14, 29. where see the note. And so 1 Joh.
4, 1. δοκιμάϑετε τὰ πνεύματα. For it appears (as
Koppe observes,) that some persons, pretending to
have the gifts of the Spirit, infected others with the
contagion of error, and perhaps vice. Hence they
were to be tried whether they spoke from the Holy
Spirit, or from the motions of fanaticism.* At the

* This subject, of the infection of error and fanaticism, is indeed
a curious and important one, and might furnish matter for a copi-
ous Essay. It may suflice for me to refer to Bp. Warburton on the
Holy Spirit, p. 148. 12mo. and to Gesner, Isagog, vol. I. p. 505,
where he says: “ Est vera contagio, que corripit interdum huma-
num genus.” And again: “Est contagio quedam etiam opinio-
num, ut qui avertere volunt alios ab sententia, ipsi incipiant illi se
dare.” Of the truth of these remarks the records of Ecclesiastical
History (see Mosheim and Jortin) supply abundant melancholy
proofs; and of the Jatter of them the Journals of Whitfield and
Wesley furnish many examples which strikingly illustrate the frailty

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 143

same time this maxim may, doubtless, and with ad-
vantage, admit of a general application. And it is
excellently remarked by Whitby, that the Apostle
does not here bid the Guides of the Church try all
things, and the people hold fast that which they de-
livered to them; but gives an injunction common to
all Christians having their senses exercised to dis-
cern between good and evil, to all who are obliged
to hold fast that which is good, and not to believe
false Prophets ; which is a strong argument for the
perspicuity and the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for
this work, and against the necessity of a living judge;
for he that must try all things, must also try the doc-
trine of this living judge ; and therefore, till he has
made this trial, must not admit his doctrine as an
article of the Christian Faith, for these words plainly
teach that, “ what we hold fast must be first tried.”
That the antient Fathers allowed this δοκιμασία to the
hearers of the Gospel preached, nay, even exhorted
them to the exercise of it, is proved by the nume-
rous citations from them here adduced by Whitby.
How different from the spirit and practice of that
Church which pretends so much veneration for the
Fathers! Yet let ws show that we can hold out redi-
gious as well as political toleration to those unlet-
tered and rash brethren who evince little of the
spirit, and indeed hold little of the danguage of tole-
ration towards ourselves !

Wets. here compares Aristot. M. Moral. 1, 22.

of human nature, and the weakness of the human understanding.
Hence the danger of colloquial disputations with fanatics, by which
instances are frequent of well meaning persons being converted to those
very fanatical tenets they meant to confute. This brings to my mind
a most admirable epigram of the learned Dr. W. Alabaster, which
to many of my readers (to nearly all of whom it is perhaps un-
known) will, Iam sure, be not unacceptable. ‘* Bella inter gemi-
nos plusquam civilia fratres Traxerat ambiguus Religionis apex. 1116
Reformate Fidei pro partibus instat; Iste reformandum denegat
esse fidem. Propositis cause rationibus, alterutrinque Concurrere
pares, et cecidere pares. Quod fuit in votis, fratrem capit alter
uterque ; Quod fuit in fatis, perdit uterque fidem.”

144 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

where speaking of reason, he says: ᾧ δοκιμάϑοντες τὸ
καλὸν αἱροῦνται. To which I add Marc. Anton. 8, 6.
ἀπλώς καὶ ἐλευθεριως ἐλοῦ τὸ κρεῖττον Kal τούτου ἀντέ-
χου. With respect to the metaphor in δοκιμ.», it is by
some thought to be derived from the trying of me-
tals. See the note on Rom. 2,18. But though this
may sometimes have place, yet it has not (1 think)
here. lLrather assent to the Fathers, that it is a me-
taphor derived from money-changers, to whom coin
is offered, and who, after trying (by ringing, weigh-
ing, the fire, or the touch-stone,) refuse and reject
the bad, and κατέχουσι; take, keep, retain the good.
22. ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδους πονηροῦ ἀπέχεσθε. ‘The inter-
pretation of this verse depends upon the sense to be
assigned to εἴδους, which the usus loquendi will per-
mit either to be interpreted appearancce, or kind,
sort. The former signification is adopted by nearly
all our English ‘Translators, and also Grot., Kst.,
Ranch, Drusc., Pisc., Menoch., Calvin, Doddr., and
most moderns. And Drus. compares a saying of
the Rabbins: “ Remove te procul a turpitudine, et
ab omni eo quod speciem ejus habet.” The above
Commentators, too, refer to various passages forbid-
ding whatever may give scandal. ‘Though they
omit what is most apposite, Rom. 12, 17. mpovootpe-
νοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων. But this is quite
unsupported by the context, and is (as the best
Critics are agreed) scarcely permitted by the pro-
priety of language. On the contrary, both these
circumstances are in favour of the latter interpreta-
tion, adopted by the antients (including the Syr.,
Arab., and Aithiop. Translators), and many eminent
moderns, as Hamm., Le Clerc, J. Buxtorf, Wets.,*

* Who thus annotates: ‘* Species duo significat, et id quod vere
est atque subsistit, ut cum temperantiam virtutis speciem dicimus: et
id quam veram existentiam non habet, et, ut loguuntur philosophi,
τὸ μὴ ὃν, φαινόμενον δὲ, ut cm speciem dominationis Claudio Impe-
ratori tribuimus, vim imperii Claudii libertis. Paulus priore notione
hic accipit, non posteriore: nam τῷ καλῷ comm. 21, opponitur
quod vere malum est: et τῇ ὁλοκληρίᾳ comm. 23. opponitur vel unus
levisque defectus.”

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 145

Benson, Koppe, Schleus., and almost all recent Com-
mentators, namely, kind, sort. So Theophyl. (from
Chrys.) : μὴ τούτου, ἢ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλώς παντὸς, καὶ
προφήτου ψευδοῦς, καὶ ἁμαρτήματος. How agreeable
this is to the context is shown by Wets., and how
strongly supported by the usus loquendi is apparent
from his numerous Classical citations, of which the
most apposite are the following. Joseph. Ant. 10,
3, 1. πᾶν εἶδος πονηρίας ἐπιδειξάμιενος ἐν τῷ τροπῷ, καὶ
μηδὲν ἀσεβὲς παραλιπὼν. Liban. Or. 688 Β. μὴ ἀρ-
κοῦντος οὐδενὸς διὰ παντὸς εἴδους χοηστῶν τε καὶ πονηρών
ἔργων, ἢ εὖ ποιεῖν, ἢ κακώς.

It must be observed that πονηροῦ is for τοῦ πονηροῦ,
and that for πονηρίας ; as Rom. 12, 9. ἀποστυγοῦντες
τὸ πονηρόν.

23. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὅλοτε-
λεῖς.

It is well observed by Theophy]. (from Chrys.) : Μετὰ τὴν παραί-
veow, καὶ εὐχὴν ἐπάγει, ἵνα καὶ ἀμφοτέρωθεν τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἔχωσιν.
The expression ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρηνῆς is introduced with a reference to
that peace inculcated at ver. 13., and the violation of which was con-
templated in the directions respecting Spiritual gifts. ‘“‘ Thus (ob-
serves Benson) at 2 Cor. 13, 11. after recommending peace, he calls
God the God of peace ; and at Rom. 15, 4 and 5., having mentioned
patience and consolation, he styles him the God of peace and consola-
tion; and at Rom. 12, 13., having mentioned trust and hope in
God, he calls him the God of hope.” Yet [ cannot but include in
εἰρηνὴ a notion of the favour and grace vouchsafed to those who
cultivate that peace of God which passeth all understanding.

“Αγιάσαι. ‘This term, like the Hebr. wap, properly signifies to
separate, remove from common use, and is often in the Old Test.
used of the Levitical offerings; but in the New Testament it fre-
quently signifies (as here) to make any one holy, pure, and virtuous,
and keep them so. Thus it is used especially of God, or the Holy
Spirit ; as in 1 Cor. 6, 11. ἡγιασθῆτε, and Apoc. 22,11. But the
most apposite passage is Joh. 17, 17. (said of God) ἡγίασον αὐτοὺς
ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, where see the note.

With respect to the ddoreAcis, Koppe would join ἁγιάσαι ὁλυτελεῖς
(for ἁγίους ποίησαι ὑμᾶς καὶ ὁλοτελεῖς), and take odor. for ἀμώμους,
ἀμέμπτους, ἁγίους, ἃς. But this is doing violence to the construc-
tion, and deteriorating the sense. I see no reason to abandon the
opinion of all the antients, and nearly all the moderns, that odore-
λεῖς is put for ὁλοτελῶς, which occurs in Deut. 13, 17. (Aquila.)
The term signifies (as Theophyl. says) ‘“ both in body and in spirit.”

The ὁλόκληρον (of which term Wets. adduces examples in super-
fluous abundance) plainly, like the 6dor. just before, means little

VOL. VIII. L

146 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

more than ὅλον. But though it agrees grammatically with πνεῦμα
and σῶμα, yet it must also refer to ἡ ψυχή. Many learned modern
Commentators (as Hamm.,Whitby, and Benson) here maintain, that
the Apostle by distinguishing the τὸ πνεῦμα, the ἡ ψυχὴ, and τὸ σῶμα,"
meant to advert to the opinion of the Philosophers, who represented
man as consisting of three parts, spirit, soul, and body. ‘Thus Ben-
son observes: ‘* The spirit they used sometimes to call the mind, or
the intellectual or governing part ; and describe it as the seat of the
understanding, or reason; or the rational soul; ψυχὴ was the ser-
sitive soul, the seat of the lower faculties, or of the passions, appe-
tites, and affections. The body was with them the mansion, in
which both the rational and sensitive soul resided.” And Vitringa
has shown that the Rabbins, as well as the Heathen Philosophers,
held. that a man’s person was constituted of three distinct sub-
stances, the rational spirit ; the animal soul ; and the visible body. I
cannot enter further into the subject, but must refer my readers to
the very learned notes of Hamm., Whitby, Mackn., Schoettg., and
Koppe... It is thought by Benson, that the Thessalonians had been
used to that way of distinguishing a man into three parts, of body,
soul, and spirit. And the Apostle chose (as the Scriptures generally
do) to speak in the popular style, and did not go to set them right
in philosophy. His only aim was to teach them the true religion.
And here, in a phrase to which they had been accustomed, he
heartily prays that they might all be thorougly sanctified, of how
many constituent parts soever they consisted.” But there is some-
thing in this principle of accommodation that I can seldom
entirely approve. I cannot think that the Apostle would intro-
duce Rabbinical notions in this Epistle, addressed as it is to the
Greeks: still less that he would chuse to adopt any of the fancies of
the Philosophers. Not to say that this would be inconsistent with
the rest of Scripture, where man is represented as consisting of two
parts only, the soul and the body: and indeed none appear ever to
have thought otherwise but a few wild and visionary philosophers.
In short the Apostle is speaking ad populum; and therefore he
cannot be supposed to advert ts any such subtleties. Nor can I but
commend the good sense of Koppe and Rosenm., in seeing that we
are only to attend to the popular use by which πνεῦμα and ψυχὴ
denoted the mind, feelings, affections, ἄς. So Koppe: “ De hoc
dubitari non debet, omnem istam hominis partitionem in πνεῦμα,
ψυχὴν et σῶμα non esse ad subtilitatem metaphysicam revocandam,
quasi totidem humanz nature partes constituere Apostolus, h. 1. vo-
luisset, sed ex legibus orationis cujusque vehementioris, in qua sole-
mus, que sunt in re quodammodo diversa, invicem ea cumulare ut to-
tam rem exhauriamus interpretandam.” At the same time I see no-
thing to disapprove of in the opinion of Bp. Hall ap. D’Oyley and many
others who take the zy. to denote the understanding ; the Ψυχὴ, the
affections ; and σῶμα the body, Which is supported by Greg. Nyssen.
ap. Theophyl. πνεῦμα μὲν εἰπὼν ὁ ἀπόστολος, τὸ νοερὸν μέρος ἐδή-
Awoe’ ψυχὴν δὲ, τὸ αἰσθητικὸν, σῶμα δὲ, τὴν φυτικὴν ἐν ἡμῖν ξωήν.
“© Thus (to use the words of Benson) the Apostle prays that their

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 147

understandings might be illumitatéd with the knowledge of the
truth ; their sensitive part, or affections, be obedient to their en-
lightened understandings ; and that the members of their bodies, or
their external actions, also, night be conformed to the will of God,
or obedient to their illuminated minds. And certainly (as Benson
observes) if these things were so, verily there would be nothing
wanting to a perfect sanctification.” But this seems to be too hy-
pothetical ; and I am not certain whether, after all, that be not the
true interpretation which was maintained by Chrys. and almost all
the antients (see the note of Grot.), and, of the moderns, has been
adopted by Grot., Zanch, Wolf, Schmid, Sthoettg., Flacius, Bar-
thius, and others ap. Wolf, who by the πνεῦμα understand the
χαρίσματα, or gifts of the Holy Spirit. And considering that the
Apostle has just been treating of these gifts, their exercise, and re-
gulation, it seems not improbable that he here alludes to the same ;
speaking of the spiritual gift as if it were another mind, or soul, See
Grot.

24. πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ὃς καὶ ποιήσει. The ὁ κα-
λῶν, Koppe and Rosenm. say, is for ὁ καλέσας, by a
Hebraism. But καλών may be the participle imper-
fect. The phrase πιστὸς ὁ Θεὸς is frequent in the
Apostle. Πιστὸς signifies verax, true to his promises.
At καὶ ποιήσει there is a popular brachylogia for,
“ who will do as he hath promised, will not be want-
ing on his part.’ For (as Whitby observes) “if the
fidelity of God required that he should sanctify and
preserve us blameless to the end, without our care
and industry, should work in us absolutely and cer-
tainly that care, and the Apostle believed this, how
could he fear lest the Thessalonians should be so
overcome by Satan’s temptations, as that his labour
with them might have been in vain, 1 Thess. 3, 5.
this being in effect to fear that God might be un-
faithful to his promise.”

25—27. Beza, Benson, and Koppe think these
verses are especially intended for those to whom the
Epistle should first be delivered, namely, the προεσ-
τώτες, or Presbyters. But this rests on mere suppo-
sition, and moreover does injustice to the humility of
the Apostle, who here, as in many other places, de-
sires the prayers of those to whom he writes; (mean-
ing thus to lead them to pray for each other and for

L2

148 1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V.

themselves). For the ἡμῶν would seem (as Koppe
thinks) to be meant for himself only.

On the ἀσπάσασθε see the note on Rom. 16, 16.
The ἅγιον, Koppe thinks, is meant to indicate, that
Christians only were to be thus saluted. And this,
indeed, is evident from ἀδελφοὶ and ἀδελφοὺς. It
plainly means (as Zanch explains) that the salutation
shall be pure, sincere, &c., as opposed to libidinous,
insincere, and hypocritical salutations.

27. opkigw ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον. There is here an ellipsis
of νὴ, or the like. ’Opxigey properly signifies to pué
any one to his oath, YAW, to make him swear. See
Mark 5, 7. and Acts 19, 13. and the notes, and espe-
cially the note on Matt. 26,63. On the mode see
Whitby.* ᾿Αναγνωσθῆναι, to be read, or recited aloud.
This direction at least must be meant for the Presby-
ters. It is of importance to observe that this and the
Epistle to the Colossians being desired to be read in
the churches, seems to show that the Apostle in-
tended all for that purpose. See Benson. Koppe
thinks it plain, from this passage, that the Apostle
had then already written more Epistles meant for the
Presbyters only, or at least that he had come to know
that the Presbyters had kept to themselves letters
meant to be read before all, only reading what
seemed useful to the people. (So Theodoret: εἰκὸς
γὰρ ἦν τοὺς πρώτους τὴν ἐπιστολὴν δεξαμένους μὴ

* Benson has here the following instructive annotation: “‘ There
were two ways of taking an oath; both of which by the Jewish
canons were reckoned binding. 1. When a man swore by his own
mouth, or pronounced the oath himself. 2. When he was adjured
by the mouth of another, and that other pronounced the oath, and
thereby laid him under the obligation of it. (See Ainsworth on Lev.
5, 1. and Whitby in loc.) In all cases, an execration or curse is sup-
posed to attend an oath; to which the person who takes the oath
is exposed, if he swears falsely. See Josh. 6, 26. 1 Sam. 14, 24.
Kings 2,23. When a person was adjured, he was bound by an
oath, and it is lawful to answer to such an oath, as appears by our
Saviour’s answering the high priest, when he adjured him by the
living God, Matt. 26, 63. and that other solemn oaths are lawful, see
on James 5, 12.”

1 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. V. 149

πάσι ταύτην προσενεγκεῖν. Edit.) For unless one or
the other had happened, why should the Apostle
have thought of thus adjuring them? ‘This, how-
ever, seems very hypothetical and precarious; and
if it be true (as many eminent Commentators say)
that this was the first Epistle which St. Paul wrote
as an Apostle, it must fall to the ground.

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

CHAP. I.

This Epistle may be regarded as a supplement to
the former. ‘The main point about which he wrote
this second Epistle was, to rectify a mistake into
which they had fallen, concerning the speedy
coming of Christ; a mistake which, if not rectified,
might have proved of dangerous consequence. But
he has also added other things of considerable im-
portance, comforting the Thessalonians under their
persecutions, and reprehending the idle and disor-
derly among them. (Benson.)

Verse 1, 2. See the note on 1 Thess. 1,1. The
words yapis—Xpicrod are thus paraphrased by Ben-
son: ‘* May favour be granted unto you, and all
happiness, from God our Father, the fountain of all
good; and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Media-
tor through whom God communicates his favours to
mankind !”

3. In ver. 3—12 the Apostle commends them for
steadfastness of their faith, and for their patience un-
der persecution: assuring them that when Christ
comes to judgment, they should be rewarded, and
their persecutors punished. (Benson.)

8. εὐχαριστεῖν ὀφείλομεν---ἄξιόν ἐστι. Compare Rom.
1, 8.1 Cor. 1, 4and 5. Phil. 1, 3and 4. Evyagio-
τεῖν is for χάριν ἔχειν, or εἰδέναι. ‘The term rarely oc-
curs in the Classical writers; though Koppe refers
for an example to Phalar. p. 96. Oxon. οὐκ εὐχαριστή-
σομεν τῷ Mew. Yet this would seem to be an imita-

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 151

tion of this Pseudo-Phalaris. It is often used by
Josephus, and sometimes by Philo. See Loesn. on
Rom. 1, 8. The plural we is (as Koppe observes) here,
and throughout this Epistle (as in the former) to be
interpreted of Paul only. And. ὀφείλομεν edy. (he re-
marks) is to be taken populariter for αἰτίαν ἔχω τοῦ
εὐχαριστεῖν. Wets. however, compares Xen. Cyr. 3.
οὐδεμίαν αὐτῷ χάριν ὀφείλομεν. On the πάντοτε, which
is to be taken as at 1 Thess. 5, 16., see the note on .
1 Thess. 5, 17. Αξιον is said by Koppe to be for
καθηκόν; as Matt. 3, 8. Acts 26, 20. and Demosth.
(cited by Grot.): ἄξιον ἐστιν σιωπᾶν. And so (I
would add) ‘Thucyd. not unfrequently. It is ex-
plained by Phot. ap. Gicumen.: δικαῖον ἐστι.

There is an antithesis between ὑπεραυξάνει 4 πίστις
ὑμῶν and mrcovdse: ἡἦ ἀγάπη, &c. Hence they are
considered by Koppe and Rosenm. as synonymous.
But surely ὑπεραυξάνειν, which occurs no where else
in the New Testament, is the stronger term. So
Theophyl. observes, that the Apostle uses it to show
τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τοῦ ὕψους. 1 would compare Herodian
8, 0, 18. ὑπερευφραίνετο. Hence we may infer, that
their faith had increased in a greater degree than
their ἀγάπη, which (it must be observed) is not to be
confined to charity, but (as compared with Gal. 5, 6.
1 Thess. 1, 3. 6, 12. 5, 8.) is (as Koppe observes) to
be extended to all those kind offices by which Chris-
tians might assist Christians, and remove, or at least
mitigate, the bitterness of those calamities with
which they were called upon to struggle. So πίστις
and ἀγάπη are introduced at Eph. 1, 15 & 16. 1 is
observed by Benson, that the great love and mu-
tual affection among the Christians at Thessalonica,
tended much to increase the stedfastness of their
faith, and their patience under persecution.

4. wore ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς---αἷς ἀνέχεσθε. The ἡμάς αὐ-
τοὺς is for ἐμαυτὸν. And καυχᾶσθαι ἐν τινὶ παρ᾽ ἑτερῷ
signifies so to rejoice and exult in the virtue of any
one as to propose him for an example to others. ’Ey
ὑμῖν, “of you.” "Ey ταῖς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ““ among

152 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I.

the members of the churches of Christ,” i. e. among
Christians. (Koppe.) But this seems refining away
the sense. It is surely more significant to say he
praised them among other churches, than among
other Christians. ‘Thus (as observes Benson) he
had, 1 Thess. 1, 9., told them how much other
churches spoke of their ready and cheerful reception
of the Christian faith at its first entrance among
.them: here he seems to allude to that, and informs
them that the matter was now carried farther; and
that he and his two assistants gloried in them, in
other churches, for their patience and stedfastness
in the faith, under all their persecutions.” And
this is supported by the authority of Chrys. and
Theophyl.

Here the Apostle follows his usual custom, of in-
troducing commendation, in order to excite to emu-
Jation and advancement in the Christian life, well
knowing the power of the stimulus laudari a viro
laudato. He acquaints them how much he gloried
in them among other and distant nations, which
could not fail to give them pleasure, and excite them
more and more to deserve such praise.

I cannot consider ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς as put for ἐμαυτόν.
It seems to mean, not only other Christians, but even
we Apostles ourselves, or even I myself. The ὑπο-
μονὴ and πίστις are, by the recent Commentators (as
Koppe and Rosenm.) treated as synonymous. Others
at least regard them as forming an hendiadis. But
it seems better to keep them (as do the antients and
the early moderns) distinct ; the latter denoting that_
principle by which the former was produced. Ὑπο-
μονὴ signifies, ‘‘ your patient endurance of afflictions
and persecutions. See Theophyl. on the significancy
of theterm. A:wyyp. and 6a. are likewise regarded
as synonymes united for greater effect. But it
should seem that the former has reference to their
persecution from Heathen zealots; the latter, to the
ill usage of their friends, or the calamities which
persons of the working classes (called by Theophyl.

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 153

πένητες ἀνθρωώποι) would have to encounter from hav-
ing disobliged Heathen masters, which would be only
another modification of persecution. Theophyl. has
here the following apt reflection: αἰσχυνέσθωσαν
ὅσοι διὰ προστασίαν ἀνθρώπων εἰς δόγματα στρεβλὰ με-
τατίϑενται. :

5. ἔνϑειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεου.

The sense of this passage is strangely misconceived by some Com-
mentators, partly on account of the construction, which is not a
little obscure. It is admitted that εἰς must be supplied, which is,
indeed, found in Theophylact’s text and the Syriac Version. But
a relative and verb substantive must also be supplied : and then the
question is, to what antecedent is the relative to be referred ? Some,
(as the antients,) say to the more remote ὑπομονὴ ; others, as
many moderns, to the nearer ταῖς θλίψεσι ; which seems preferable.
Though perhaps, after all, the whole sentence preceding may be the
antecedent, and thus the relative be 6; q.d. ‘* which endurance of
yours, or your having to endure such persecutions and afflictions,
will serve for an évdecypa,” &c. But the scope of the passage is
(as I have before said) strangely misconceived by some, who under-
stand by the righteous judgment of God his judging righteously by
taking the Gentiles into his kingdom. This and other such fancies
(which may be seen in the Crit. Sacr., Pole, and Wolf) tend to ob-
scure rather than clear up the sense, the true ratio of which was
not amiss seen by the antients, and: yet more clearly by the mo-
derns. The true interpretation is (I think) that of Grot., Zanch,
Wolf, Whitby, Doddr., Benson, Rosenm., Koppe, Jaspis, and most
recent Commentators, namely, ‘‘ which endurance of persecution
and affliction is a proof and evidence of the righteous judgment God
will exercise at the last day. So Grot.: “ These things are suf-
fered, that God may, at some future time, have an opportunity of
showing his justice.” And Koppe: ““ That you are miserable, and
your persecuting adversaries happy, supplies a strong argument for
another life, and for you’a better one, but for them a worse.” ‘ Sup-
pose God (says Benson) to be just, 1 know no stronger proof of
a righteous judgment to come, than the persecutions of good men
and the present triumphs of the wicked ; no argument of a righteous
judgment to come more forcible and striking than this.” See his
note. It is justly and elegantly observed by Wets.: ‘* Tantum ab
est, ut homines pii, si vexationes patiantur, incipiant de justitia
Dei, que bonis mala immittit, dubitare; ut potius probationes
atque confirmationes reddantur atque tam certé spe futuram
gloriam precipiant, quam certd sciunt, se nunc malorum pa-
tientid defungi.” The Apostle (as Chrysost. and Theophyl. well
observe) supplies consolation not only by bidding them expect the
reward of their persecutions, but the punishment of their persecu-
tors. Onwhich sentiment it were out of place to seek refinements.

At εἰς τὸ καταξιωρῆναι---πάσχετε (which is a separate clause)
there is another subaudition to be made. ‘The mildest may be this:

154 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 1.

«© (Which afflictions are permitted to befall you) in order that ye
may be accounted worthy of, and so obtain, the kingdom of God.”
For such is (I think) the sense of caraé., which is a vox pregnans.
Koppe merely dwells on the latter part of the sense, and wholly
omits the former; which seems unjustifiable. At the same time I
see no reason to take occasion from a popular expression like this
to seek arguments, one way or the other, on the controverted doc-
trine of human merit. Benson’s note may be consulted: but on
this, as well as most other mysteries of the Gospel, his notions are
too confined and limited.

6. εἴπερ δίκαιον---θλίψιν. Here εἴπερ has the sense
of siquidem, nam. Q&cumen. says it is put for ἐπεί-
δηπερ; Chrys., for ἐπεὶ ; and he well explains the
ratio of this idiom, which also (he observes) carries
with it an answer in the affirmative; as we fami-
liarly say, “ If God hate the wicked, and care for the
righteous, this or that shall be; but he does so.” We
may, then, render: “‘ If (asis the case) itis just,” &c.

6. δίκαιον παρὰ Oew, “ just in the sight of God.”
᾿Ανταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσὶν ὑμᾶς θλίψιν. This, like
many similar words in all languages, is capable both
of a good, and a bad: sense, on which I need not
dilate. Suffice it to say, that by thus introducing ἃ -
word capable of a good sense with a word implying
punishment (as in the Psalm, ‘* reward evil to his
adversaries’), there is something more of point
imparted to the other term.

Θλίψις does not properly signify punishment (as
here); but it is so used for the sake of antithesis.
See Rion! 12, 19., and the note.

7. καὶ ὑμὴν τοῖς GaiBonevais ἄνεσιν pel ἡμῶν. The
καὶ may be rendered, “ and (on the other hand).”
“Aveois properly signifies relaxation, release from
labour or trouble: as 2 Cor. 7, 5.; but, as Koppe
remarks, like the Heb. 32, it is, by an image fre-
quent among the Orientals (with whom rest repre-
sents happiness), used to denote the felicity promised
to God’s faithful servants. See Heb. 3, 11. and 4,
1—1ll.and the notes. Thisis, however, not confined
to the Orientals. So our Scottish Theocritus :

«© And when fatigued with work, or close employment,
“Α blink of rest ’s a sweet enjoyment !”

7. μεθ᾽ ἡμιῶν, “ together with, in common with us.”

2a I. 155

oO
~ TH SS > >
SSALQ? the certainty of the re-

This jig meant te
ware? See Βιλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου I.—adrod. A pas-
"ἐν τῇ ΕἿ majesty, of which the foreign Com-
weg Ssrs, as usual, seem to exert themselves to
~wer the grandeur of the imagery by their minute
explanations ;* not failing to tell us that all is said
ἀνθρωποπαθῶς ; which is surely more than they can
know. In the mean time, it were better to abstain
from all irreverent discussion.

That the subject here is the final advent of Christ
to judgment, appears (as Koppe and Rosenm. ob-
serve) from a comparison with 1 Thess. 1, 10. 3, 13.
4, 15. seqq. 5,2 & 23.; and therefore to interpret
this, as some do, of Christ’s advent to destroy Jeru-
salem, seems merely a device resorted to, to avoid
the difficulties at c. 2.

8. ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς, wd wr Ps. 104, 4. πυρ. Paroyov
Is. 4, 5. TAT? WN πυρὸς φλόγὰ or ἐν Gaoyl πυρὸς ;
and here, indeed, some MSS. have ἐν φλογὶ πυρὸς
(See Ps. 29, 7., &c.); but that is ex emendatione.
(Koppe.) ‘The ratio of the idiom is thus explained
by Grot.: “Idem est πῦρ φλογὸς ut hic, et. φλὸξ
πυρὸς Ps. 29, 7. Eza. 29,6. Joel 2, 5. Apoc. 9, 12.
quia quod Hebreeis vice Genitivi est, id modo sub-
jecti, modo adjuncti, habet significationem.”?. On the
thing signified by the πῦρ φλογὸς Commentators are
not agreed. The antients and the earlier moderns,
as Est., think that it means the fire of hell, i.e. the
fire of the conflagration which shall usher in the day
of judgment. ‘Theophyl. and others construe the
words with διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν ; q.d. ἐν τῇ γεέννῃ κολά-
Sovros τοὺς ἀπειθεῖς ; or with τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
with the subaudition of γενησομένῃ. Compare Ps.

* Thus they say adzoxahiwWer is for παρουσίᾳ ; since the Heb. mba3
and ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι are sometimes used of simple appearance:
which needs no refutation. They also take ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως
αὐτοῦ for ἀγγέλων δυνάτων (See Benson), which is, however, well
rendered by Rosenm., ““ qui majestati ejus inserviunt :” and he

rightly observes that δύναμις here, like the Heb. ΠῚ] ἃ and ty, simply
signifies the Divine majesty.

156 2 THESSALY.

96, 3. The latter constructi§#*?*™
Most recent Commentators, from tre more natural.
take it to denote the glory i in which adownwa Ἢ
be clothed at the great day. Koppe u no ord shal Υ̓
of awful lightning and thunder ; Sich jgzetands 1
sistent with the former. In either case ἐν muse
taken in the sense inter. Hamm. understands it Οἱ
the Angels; and Grot. sinks it into a sort of rheto-
rical ornament. Upon the whole, there is no great
objection to the interpretations of Benson and
Koppe; but I see no sufficient reason to abandon
the common one, which is confirmed by the unani-
mous authority of the antients. The ἐν will thus be
for σὺν. We may compare Virg. Ain. 2, 587. ani-
mumque explesse juvabit ultricis lamme, h.e. ultrici
flamma ; a metaphorical expression for ultio, punish-
ment. See Wakef. on Eurip. Ion. 1281.

On the mode in which this will take place I dare
not venture to offer an opinion. The reader may
consult Mackn. who, as often, professes much know-
ledge of this kind.

Διδόναι ἐκδίκησιν is a sort of Hebraism for ποιεῖσ-
θαι €xd., and is said ἀνθρωποταθώς. Τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι
Θεὸν---αριστοῦ. By the former, Benson thinks, are
meant the unbelieving Gentiles ; and by the latter
the unbelieving Jews. “And so Koppe. (See Benson’s
note.) But this seems too hypothetical, and far
too limited. 1 see no reason to abandon the com-
mon opinion, that by τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι ©. are meant
all non-Christians, of course implying such as have
had the means of knowing, and have neglected them,
and whose ignorance is voluntary (See Rom. 2, 16.) ;
by the latter, those who, after having embraced the
Gospel, do not fulfil its injunctions. That two sorts
of persons are meant, is plain from the repetition of
the article τοῖς.

9, οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν. Koppe explains : * noenas
injuriarum Christianis illatarum luent.”? And he
refers to numerous examples of τίνειν with δίκην, and
similar words. But this is an unwarrantable lower-
ing of the sense. The Apostle is speaking of the

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 17

general judgment, and the punishment of all the
wicked, and not merely those who have persecuted
Christians. On the sentiment the Rabbinical illus-
trations may be consulted.

9. ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον, “eternal perdition.” On these
words Chrys. has some masterly remarks in opposi-
tion to the Origenians, who maintained that the
punishment of the wicked would not be eternal. The
very nature of the expressive term ὅλεθρος, perdition,
suggests the idea of utter and irrecoverable ruin and
destruction. It is said by the Commentators to be
put for κόλασιν. But the truth is, that the two
phrases are (as often in St. Paul) blended into one;
q. d. ‘they shall suffer eternal punishment, even
utter perdition.” It may be well asked, with Chrys.
and Theophyl., how αἰώνιος ever can mean πρόσκαι-
gos? The common device to which the Unitarians
and others resort, namely, that of representing the
term as meaning no more than age-lasting, is only
fit for Sciolists, and those who wish to be deceived,
and merely merits silent contempt. The same may
be said of the notable device of Koppe, who takes
αἰώνιος for τοῦ aiwvos μέλλοντος, as Opposed τῇ ἐπιγείω,
τοῖς παθήμασι τοῦ νῦν καίρου, Rom. 8,18. Andina
similar manner he would take πῦρ αἰώνιον, Matt. 18,
8. and κρίσις ἄιων. Mark 3, 29. Nor can I omit to
reprobate that of Rosenm., who renders, ‘‘ only to
end with their lives,” referring to Joh. 8, 35. How
men of their learning and ability could bring them-
selves to propound such harsh and frigid interpre-
tations (manifestly devised for the nonce), I cannot
conceive; but sure I am that the mischief done,
and the responsibility incurred by this spirit of rash
innovation is inconceivable, and, if not checked, this
mania is calculated to shake the stability of the
Gospel itself. On the awful subject in question see
the copious Dissertation of Whitby.

Now this perdition, it is added, shall be ἀπὸ xpo-
σώπου τοῦ Kupiov; which words, from their brevity,
are somewhat obscure, and have been variously in-

158 @ THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I.

terpreted. The antients and Zanch think they
denote the facility with which men will be judged,
and hint that the cause of condemnation will be in
themselves, as being self-condemned at the first
glance of the presence of the Lord, and (as Bishop
Hopkins says) ‘ blasted by the lightning of his eyes !”
But this interpretation, however ingenious, seems
very harsh. Scarcely more probable is that of Grot.
and others, who take ἀπὸ to signify the cause, for ὑπὸ
and παρά; q.d. “they shall suffer punishments to
be inflicted by the Lord and his divine power.” A
sense not a little frigid. And (as Koppe observes)
ams is never so taken; the passages adduced by
Grot. being of another kind. No interpretation
bears the stamp of truth but the commonly received
one, which is ably supported by Koppe. He re-
marks (after Grot.) that the words are taken from
Is. 2,10, 19. IDI VITA TT TWN 2b Gr. ἀπὸ προσ-
wrov τοῦ φύβου Kugiov καὶ a. τ. ὃ. τι ι. a. Τὸ πρόσωπον
τοῦ Kupiov is for ὁ Κύριος, by a poetical figure. Δόξα
and ἰσχῦς, which answers to the Hebr. 17 and PKA,
are synonymous, and express the majesty of the
Lord. So Theophyl.: οὐ γὰρ ἁπλώς, ἀλλὰ μετὰ
δόξης ἰσχύος παρέστι" οὔτε ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ ἀνίσχυρος, οὔτε
ἡ ἰσχὺς ἄδοξος" τουτέστιν, ὡς βασιλεὺς δυνατὸς ὀφθήσε-
ται. The ἀπὸ signifies, ‘far removed from the Lord
and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.” See Gen.
4,14. And this interpretation is plainly supported
by the sense of the passage of Isaiah: That the
wicked and reprobate will pass their miserable ex-
istence in quite another place from the habitations
of the accepted, is the perpetual doctrine of Christ
and the Apostles. So Matt. 25,41. “ Depart from
me ye wicked into everlasting fire,” &c.

10. ὅταν ἔλθη ἐνδοξασθῆναι---ἐκείνη. It is observed
by Koppe that the members ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις
αὐτοῦ and θαυμασθῆναι ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, are
altogether parallel, and to be interpreted one from
the other. At ἐνδοξ. is to be understood ὥστε. It
is, moreover, observed by Koppe, that ἐνδοξασθῆναι

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 159

ἐν τινι TAD} or INDMT with 3, is often used in the
sense, to give glory or praise for any one’s happiness
or misery, as being the cause of it. Compare Exod.
14, 4. Ez. 28, 22. Is. 49, 3. Θαυμαϑέσθαι ἐν τινι (as
Is. 61, 6. Sap. 8, 11.) will be the same. By the τοῖς
ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ and the τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, are denoted the
same persons, namely, all those who truly believe
and faithfully obey the Gospel. See 1 Thess. 3, 13.
The sense is: “ when, at that day, he shall come to
be glorified in the reward of his faithful disciples,
and to be admired in the exaltation of those who
have believed in him.*

On the sense of the next words ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη -τ
ἐκείνῃ, Commentators differ. ‘The most favourite in-
terpretation for the last century has been that of
Grot., who, following the Syr., takes ἐπιστεύθη ina
future sense ; it being (he says) an aorist signifying
a thing which at the time spoken of shall be past.
But that is a very precarious principle; and in pas-
sages of difficulty the Syriac translator has little
weight. Koppe, however (as does also Elsner),
adopts this interpretation, and assigns the following
as the sense: “certa enim evenient tempore isto,
quaecungue vobis de ea re alias jam confirmavimus :”
observing, that πιστεύεσθαι is for πιστοῦσθαι, or πιστὸν
εἶναι. But that is a signification which, though oc-

* It is well remarked by Benson, that whilst the saints are de-
spised, insulted, and persecuted, Christ is not glorified in them, nor
admired for his regard to them. But, when he shail punish their
persecutors, raise his saints from the dead, deliver them out
of all their troubles, and make them completely glorious and
happy; then shall he be glorious and admirable in the eyes of the
whole world. His veracity, power, wisdom, and abundant goodness
will then shine out conspicuously. The whole intelligent creation
will then esteem him glorious and admirable, for what he has done
in and for his faithful disciples. Col. 3, 3 ἃ 4. 1 Joh. 2, 1. &c. with
which compare Is. 14, 23. Wisd. 5, 1. ἃς, So Theophyl. observes,
that the Lord’s glory in this is theirs, and theirs is His, since he is
glorified in the glorifying of his saints. Moreover, when those are
brought forward who suffer torments inflicted for the purpose of
inducing them to apostatize from the faith, and did not apostatize,
then their glory and the Lord’s will be shown.”

160 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I.

curring in the Classical writes, is rarely found in the
Scriptural ones. I see no reason to deviate from the
construction and sense of the passage laid down by
the antients, and adopted by most modern interpre-
ters, who take ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη, as put, per trajec-
tionem, as Rom 2, 12 & 16., and to be united with
ὅταν ἔλθῃ ; and explained, ‘‘the day of judgment ;”
which sense is confirmed by 2, 2. Benson has
rightly seen that at the words ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη---ὐμᾶς
must be supplied, “and in you particularly.” ‘This
is required by the ὑμᾶς following. Theophyl. (from
Chrys.) paraphrases thus: Θαυμασθήσεται 5 Θεὸς ἐν
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη, διότι TO κήρυγμια ἡμῶν καὶ ὃ λόγος ἐπισ-
τεύθη παρ᾽ ὑμών, τουτέστι, διότι ὑμεῖς ἐπιστεύσατε, καὶ
ἀξίους ἑαυτοὺς τῶν ἀγαθὼν ἐκείνων ἐποιήσατε, τῶν τότε
διδομένων τοῖς πιστοῖς. ‘The sense may be thus ex-
pressed: “because our testimony among you to the
truth of the Gospel of Christ had been believed; and
the practice suitable thereto observed.”

11. εἰς ὃ kal—év δυνάμει. The εἰς ὃ is not (as Koppe
tells us) a mere particle of transition, but it rather
signifies in order to which; 4. ἃ. “ And in order
that he may be thus glorified and held out to admir-
ation in you, we constantly offer up prayers for you.”
The περὶ is for ὑπὲρ, in behalf of; as Luke 4, 38.
Joh. 17, 9. Eph. 6, 18. Col. 1, 3.

Ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἀξιώση τῆς κλήσεως ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν.
The words are variously interpreted. The το-
cent Commentators, as Koppe and Rosenm., ren-
der simply : ‘that God would make you partakers
of, give you this blessing of eternal felicity promised
in the Gospel.* And certainly this must, upon the
whole, have been the Apostle’s meaning; yet it is
better to keep more close to the words and the literal
sense. Schleus. 1, 251. renders thus: “ut vos dig-
nos reddat Christiane religionis sectatores, vel dig-
nos qui potiamini futuraé Christianorum felicitate.”

~

4 ;
* And so Benson, who observes (from Vorst. and Zanch) that
κλήσεως is put, by metonomy, for the glory and felicity to which
they were called.

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. 161

But I see not how this sense can be elicited from the
words. I prefer the common interpretation, “ treat
or account you as worthy.” The κλησ. does not so
much denote the felicity itself.as that which leads to
it: for 1 agree with Chrys. and the other antient
Commentators (and, of the moderns, Est.), that it
signifies what is by Theologians termed the calling
of perseverance, or effectual calling. So Theophyl.:
κλῆσιν οὖν ἐνταῦθα λέγει, THY διὰ τῶν πράξεων βεβαιου-
μένην, ἥτις καὶ κυρίως κλῆσίς ἐστιν, ὥσπερ καὶ πίστις
κυρίως ἡ ἔμπρακτος.

The words following καὶ πληρώσῃη---δυνάμιει, are
not a little obscure, and have been variously inter-
preted. They may be best understood by being
taken as explanatory of the preceding (so Theophyl.:
ταύτην, φησι, τὴν πλῆσιν λέγω); and hence we must
reject the interpretation of Noesselt and Rosenm.,
‘‘ perficiat virtute (sua) benevolentiam (vestram)
et liberalitatem a fide profectam.” The context
shows (as Benson observes) that the ἀγαθωσύνης does
not relate to their benevolence to other men, but
God’s goodness to them. See Matt. 11, 26. Luke
12, 32. Eph. 1,5 & 9. Is. 53,10. Besides, the con-
struction of the sentence will not permit that inter-
pretation. Koppe, who minutely discusses the
words, acknowledges that both grammatical pro-
priety, and the common usage of language require
that εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης (as being a phrase synony-
mous with χαρίτος) should be referred to God; and
ἔργον πίστεως be taken of the efect of this ἀγαθωσύνη
Θεοῦ, and πληροῦν, be variously rendered, according
to the diversity of signification in ἀγαθωσύνη and
πίστις. He then lays down the construction and
sense thus: πληρώση (sc. ἐν ὑμῖν) mac. edd. ἀγαβ. sum-
md sud benignitate vos amplectatur (Schol. Grec.
πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν ἀγαθὴν βουχὴν εἰς ὑμᾶς 6 Θεὸς, contra
vero πληρώσῃ ἔργον πίστεως, fidem in vobis sud vi ex-
citatam servet,- alat, augeat. And so Zanch. The
whole’ is very well paraphrased by Benson thus:

VOL. VIII, M

162 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. I. II.

‘that he would, by his mighty power, carry on and
complete all the kind designs of his goodness; and
particularly that he would compiete your patience
under afflictions, as well as every other part of holi-
ness; that great work, which is the proper fruit of
your faith.”

12. ὅπως ἐνδοξασθῇ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kupiod ἡμῶν Ἴ. X.
ἐν ὑμῖν. Koppe takes ἐνδοξ. ἐν τινι as at ver. 10.;
and he thinks that καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ 15 synonymous
with ἐνδοξάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν just before, only inversely pro-
pounded ; 4. d. “Illa ipsa, quam tum nacturi estis,
telicitas, et Christo et vobis laudi erit atque honori.”
But this is very harsh and precarious. It has been
well observed by Crell., that the Apostle subjoins
the first cause of the thing wished, and which im-
pelled him to wish and pray.

It has been debated whether the Apostle is speak-
ing of the name of Christ being glorified in them,
and they in him in this world, or at the day of judg-
ment? or both? But all these opinions are liable
to objection. The best founded interpretation seems
to be that of Chrys., Theophyl. and other antients,
and which is embraced by Benson, namely, that
Christ might be glorified in them in ¢his life, and
they in him at the last day. This, too, is the view
taken by Crell. who has sifted the sense of the whole
verse with his usual minute diligence.

By the name of Christ (as Benson observes) is
here, as often, meant his religion and Gospel. See
more in Benson.

CHAP. II.

Verse 1. Having before mentioned the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle here gently slides
into the main design of this Epistle; which was to
rectify.a mistake that had been spread among the
Christians at Thessalonica, either by some weak, or
designing persons viz. “That the day of the Lord

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 163

was then just at hand.” And to procure regard to
that assertion, they had insinuated that St. Paul had
had it revealed to him; and that he had intimated as
much, either by word of mouth, or by epistle. He
now assures the Thessalonians, that he had had no
such revelation; and that he had neither said, nor
designed to insinuate, any such thing. On the
contrary, he had formerly told them, and now re-
peats it, that a grand apostacy was first to happen ;
and that the man of sin would first appear, and
delude many. And, having thus warned them, he
hoped that neither this mistake, nor any thing else,
would so stagger them as to cause them to throw off
Christianity, and endanger their final acceptance
with God. (Benson.)

1. ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τ. Καὶ.
ἧ. I cannot think that ὑπὲρ is well rendered by
Beza, Pisc., and our English translators, as if it were
a formula of solemn adjuration. Greatly preferable
is the interpretation of Camer., Hamm., Grot., Vi-
tringa, Doddr., Benson, and almost all recent Com-
mentators, who take it for παρὰ, respecting, which
yields an unexceptionable sense.

1. καὶ ἡμιῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. The best com-
ment on this passage may be derived from 1 Thess. 4,
16 & 17. where see the note. With respect to τῆς
παρουσίας τοῦ Kupiov, it is by the best Commentators,
antient and modern, understood of the advent of
Christ to judgment. Some indeed take it of his ad-
vent to the destruction of Jerusalem; but this can-
not well be the sense here. See the instructive note
of Benson.

2. εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ voos,
p. 6. The word σαλεύεσθαι signifies properly, to be
moved as a wave of the sea, or to be tossed by waves.
It is, however, applied to shaking of any kind,
both physical and metaphorical. So Arrian Epict.
3, 26. (cited by Wets.), μὴ ἀποσαλεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν
σοφισμάτων. Here ἀπὸ τοῦ vos being added, the
phrase corresponds to the Latin mencis statu detur-

M 2

164 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. It.

bari: and Koppe thinks it quite synonymous with
the θροεῖσθαι following.- Now the μήτε θροεῖσθε may
very well be compared with Matt. 24, 6. ὁρᾶτε μὴ
θροεῖσθε, 1. 6. ταρασσασθε, or θορυβεῖσθε. (See Alberti’s
Gloss. Grec.) But there is no reason to confound
both together. ‘The words may be rendered thus:
«that ye be not soon shaken from the hitherto
settled persuasion of your minds, nor be thrown
into unreasonable pertutbation.” The ταχέως seems
to be levelled at some who had been soon thus
shaken. They possibly thought (Benson observes)
that Christ would come in a few months, weeks, or
days. And it was of very great moment to rectify
that mistake, lest they should apprehend Christ
would never come, or that his religion deserved no
regard, when they found that he did not come so
speedily as they expected.”

Q. μήτε διὰ πνεύματος, μήτε διὰ λόγου, μήτε OF ἐπιστο-
λῆς ὦ. ὃ. ἡ. The σνευμ. is explained by some, as
Vatab., Pisc., Vorst., Beza, and Koppe, as denoting
one who pretends to a spiritual gift, namely, of pro-
phecy. Most others, both antient and modern, take
it to mean a prophecy purporting to be dictated by
the spirit. ‘The λόγου is understood by Theophyl.
of viva voce instruction. But this seems too formal
and harsh. Iam inclined to think with Grot. and
Koppe, that there is an hypozeugma, and that the
λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς are connected, and the ws δι᾽
ἡμιῶν is to be referred to both, as λόγον and γράμματα
in Polyb. 4, 24. The former, it should seem, refers
to something asserted to have been said by Paul ;
the second, to a letter purporting to have been
written by him. On this passage see the instructive
note of Dr. Benson. It is probable from hence that
there were then persons guilty of each of the three
above mentioned impostures; and the two last, it
has been supposed, had already been practised in the
case of the Apostle. We have not, indeed, infor-
mation sufficient to enable us to form any decided
opinion; but the carrying, or reporting, pretended

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 165

verbal orders, or messages, probably had happened ;
and as the forging of letters was not uncommon in
these corrupt times, the Apostle might have reason
to fear it, and therefore provided against it. Indeed
we may perceive in the case of all his other Epistles
a great caution in this respect; though he no where
hints at any probable imposture. I would, moreover,
observe, that it is not impossible impositions as to
the day of the Lord being near at hand might have
been practised by some, from the same mistaken
motives as have produced the pious frauds of the

Romish church.

8. μή τις ὑμᾶς eEararyoy—tporoy, sub. spare, “See
that no man deceive you by these or by any other
means whatsoever.”? “Ors ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία
πρώτον. The phraseology is extremely brief; and
something must be supplied. Rosenm. proposes the
following: Ὅτι οὐ μὴ παραγίνεται οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμέρα,
ἐὰν μὴ πρότερον ἔλθη ἡ ἀποστασία.

There is unquestionably no passage in the New Testament that
has so much and so vainly exercised the learning and ingenuity of
Commentators as this most obseure prediction respecting the ὁ
ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας the man of sin, to detail and review all the
various opinions on which would be beyond the compass of an an-
notatien, and would require a pamphlet of no very slender dimen-
sions. ‘To me it appears to be a prophecy, and as much defying all
attempts at any satisfactory determination of its sense as any in the
Apocalypse. Such being the case, I shall content myself with de-
tailing and reviewing the principal opinions, referring my readers
to Whitby, Benson, Mede, Newton, and Koppe. And, considering
the uncertainty of the subject, and the variety of opinions, I cannot
attempt to form any regular exegesis.

The various hypotheses that have been hazarded may very well
be distributed into two classes; 1. That of those Commentators
who interpret the words of something which was speedily to happen,
and did happen, in the course of a comparatively short period ; as,
for instance, those who understand them of the destruction of Je-
rusalem, and take the apostacy to denote that which Ecclesiastical
history informs us did take place before that event, especially among
the Jewish Christians, through prejudices in favour of the perpetuity
of the Mosaic law, or an expectation of the temporal kingdom of
the Messiah, er the fear of persecution. And Vitringa shows that
a great apostacy prevailed in the Christian church between the days
of Nero and Trajan. Of this, too, Whitby understands it: or the
apostacy may (he thinks) mean the revolt from the Romans: which,

166 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

however, can by no means be admitted; though it has been adopted
by Schoettg., who thinks that by the man of sin is meant the Pha-
risees and Rabbins, the instigators to that rebellion. But this latter
hypothesis is liable to numerous objections, and the former, though
the more probable, cannot be the true opinion, since the strong
expressions which follow are inapplicable, or rather inexplicable,
on that hypothesis. Nor even does Lightfoot’s hypothesis, which
unites both the above, seem to be at all more tenable, as one event
followed the other. Hammond, with his usual bias towards his
favourite hypothesis, explains the ἀποστασία of the defection of
the Gnostics, effected by the arts of the heresiarch Simon Magus,
whom he supposes to be the man of sin, understanding, too, the
day of the Lord, of the destruction of Jerusalem. But it appears
from Euseb., that Simon died some years before the destruction of
Jerusalem ; and there is no evidence to prove that the Gnostics
subsisted as ἃ sect, and still less that they preached at so early a
period. See Tittmann’s able Tract de vestigiis Gnosticorum, in
N. T. Grot. takes Caius Cesar to be meant by the man of sin;
and the apostacy he understands of his impiety and abominable
wickedness. (See the note of Grot.) But this is too improbable to
deserve any attention. Wets. understands the apostacy of the re-
bellion and slaughter of the three Princes who, before Vespasian,
had been proclaimed by the Roman Emperors: and he takes the
man of sin to have been Titus and the Flavian house! But this
hypothesis is as little entitled to notice as the last.* Far more
attention is due to the opinion of Koppe, who, after a long and able
review of the principal hypothesis in a copious Excursus, proposes
his own, which is thus detailed by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Koppe omnem, que
sequitur, impietatis descriptionem ex loco Dan. 11 5, 6. repetitam
esse statuit. Utram vero Apostolus ipse hunec omnem Prophete
locum ad prodigia regnum Messie praegressura loco nostro primus
accommodaverit, an vero ex eodem, jam antea aliud gentis Judaice
oraculum (non aliud quidem libris sacris comprehensum, sed inter
Judzos tamen notissimum), conflatum, hocque ipsum ab A postolo
demum ad suam rem accommodatum fuerit, certo sibi non liquere fa-
tetur, probabilis tamen posterius existimat, quum que in magna alias,
locorum Danielis et nostri similitudine, negari non potest in non-
nullis dissimilitudo, ex hac ratione facilius intelligi et explicari posse
videatur. (Ad locum Danielis respexisse Apostolum, a verosimili
haud abhorret ; reliqua vero conjecturis nituntur.) Ex hac igitur
hypothesi admonet Apostolus Christianos suos de eo, quod jam ali-
unde maxime ex ipsis V. T. oraculis edocti erant, non posse diem

* Noesselt and Rosenm. interpret the ἀποστασία of the sedition
of the Jews, and their insurrection against the Roman government.
An hypothesis nearly the same with that of Whitby, Hamm., and
Schoettg., and which is supported with the usual ability of those
eminent writers ; but it may suflice to refer the reader to Rosen-
muller’s note,

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 11. 167

illum, quem tam anxié expectarent, adesse, nisi errores, vitia,
calamitates denique insignes in oraculis istis preedicta antea venis-
sent ; deinde vero, quam insignem quandam errorum et improbita-
tis contagionem, jam tum gliscere, partim inter Thessalonicenses,
partim in ceteris ecclesiis Paulus animadverteret, ipse adventum
Christi, etsi non illico futurum, tamen etiam non longé remotum et
optans et facilé sperans, hance ipsam improbitatem δα singularis
istius preedicte impietatis initia referre non dubitat, ejusdem tamen
incrementa ante Christi adventum multo adhuc majora magisque
tremenda fore pravidet et comminatur.” It is not improbable that
the Apostle had the passage of Daniel in mind (as was the opinion of
the early Commentators), but (as Rosenm. observes) the other
parts of the hypothesis rest Upon mere conjecture,

The above opinions are all evidently too limited. To me, it
appears, that the whole portion is a prophecy proceeding from direct
revelation from God, or Jesus Christ, and perhaps not fully under-
stood by the Apostle himself, nor meant to be understood by any,
till its accomplishment, which was to be by no means speedy, but
gradual. Hence the antient Commentators had less chance than
ourselves of discovering its real import. Much perplexed with
it they were, but shewed their usual sagacity and prudence, by
supposing the prophecy to be one of distant accomplishment (for
they understood, by the day of the Lord, the day of Judgment: and
the ἀποστασία, and man of sin, they considered as equivalent to
Antichrist in the Apocalypse, who, they supposed, would not arise
till after the destruction of the Roman Empire. And so Benson),
and therefore not to be fully comprehended before its completion.
Upon the whole, I find no interpretation which I can adopt, though
I acknowledge there is much to countenance that of many moderns,
as Mede, Benson, Doddr., Mackn., and most Protestant Commen-
tators, who take the whole to have reference to the odious usurpa-
tions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the abominable corruptions of the
Romish Church. Now, the idiom, by which a series of persons
filling an office are spoken of as one, is well known, and satisfactorily
established by the Commentators in loc., and Bp. Newton on the
Prophecies, Diss. 22. Thus the ἀποστασία will signify the defec-
tion and usurpation of the man of sin, who placed himself in the
temple of God for forty-two months, i. 6. 1,260 years. See Rev. 11,
2. ‘This great adversary of the Church is rightly regarded by the
antients asthe same with the Antichrist of Apoc. 13., who is there
predicted as arising from the Church.

My limits will not permit me to enlarge further on this interpre-
tation, but the reader is referred to the masterly Dissertations of
Mede and Benson, and also the Annotations of the latter. Few (I
think) can rise from a perusal of those excellent Tracts, without
feeling that the points of resemblance between the apostacy of the
man of sin, &c., and various well known traits of the Romish
Church, are such as not a little to countenance the interpretation
in question.

In briefly explaining the phraseology of the following verses it is
impossible for me to state the various expositions of words and

168 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. 11.

phrases according to the various views taken of the general scope of
the whole passage. I must, therefore, content myself with chiefly
detailing such as are adapted to the last mentioned, as being the
most common and probably as true an interpretation as any other.

4. ὃ ἀντικείμιενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμιενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμε-
νον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα. In the 6 ἀντικ., a term often
used of one who is in opposition to, and at variance
with, God and his people (as Is. 46, 6., Phil. 1, 28.,
1 Tim. 6, 14.); there seems to be an allusion to him
who is called Antichrist in the Apocalypse. And
such is the opinion of several eminent Commentators,
antient and modern.

4. ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν, i. 6. (as Benson ex-
plains) any one that is truly called God, to whom
the name of God can be justly applied. Σέβασμα
simply denotes an object of veneration, and is
properly applicable to a God (as Acts 17, 23., Wisd.
14, 20.,11, 17. See Schleus. Lex.), but was also used
of Emperors and Kings, considered by the Oriental
nations as God’s vicegerents on earth. Benson and
others think that by τὸν λεγόμενον Θεὸν is meant,
magistrates, called Gods, in Ps. 82, 6.3; and that
σέβασμια is meant especially of the Roman Emperor;
as appears from its affinity to Σεβαστὸς, Augustus,
the name given to the Cesars.

How closely this corresponds to the conduct of the
Roman Pontiffs, every attentive reader of History,
Ecclesiastical or Civil, must perceive. It is well
observed by Doddr., that if this be not applicable to
that, itis difficult to say who there ever has been, or
can be, to whom it should belong.

4. ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ---Θεός. His
sitting in the temple of God must, according to the
most natural interpretation of the words, import his
ruling and presiding there, and arrogating authority
in things spiritual as well as temporal.* How

* «Tt was (says Benson) the opinion of Jerome, Chrys., Gicumen.,
Theophyl., and other of the antients, that by the temple of God,
the Apostle meant, not the temple of Jerusalem, but the Christian
Church.” Theodoret says, ‘‘ The Apostle has called the [Christian]

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 169

strikingly this trait corresponds to the Roman Pon-
tificate it is needless to remark.

5. οὐ μνημονεύετε ὅτι, ἔτι dy πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ταῦτα ἔλεγον
ὑμῖν. These words show that the Apostle had
before, viva voce, made the Thessalonians acquainted
with this prophecy : and hence we may account for
the brevity, and consequent obscurity, of this
passage, which was evidently intended by the Apos-
tle for the Thessalonians only. Benson remarks on
the propriety with which the Apostle here uses the
singular number ; since this was doubtless revealed
to him only, and not to Silvanus and ‘Timothy.

6. καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον---καιρῷ, “ Ye know what is
now the obstruction to his appearing openly, as he
will do at his own proper season. (Benson.) By the
τὸ κατέχον, and the ὁ κατέχον, at ver. '7., many under-
stand, the Roman Emperor; q. d. ‘‘he that holdeth
the reins of empire.” But Benson thinks this does
not well agree with the context, nor with the τὸ
κατέχον here. I agree with him that the best inter-
pretation is that of our common Version, ‘‘ what
withholdeth;” which Chrys., and the antients, as
well as most moderns, understand (not without
reason) of the Roman Empire. So that, in fact,
both interpretations come to the same thing. Chrys.
(and after him others) first perceived the true reason
for the obscurity of the wording, namely,,a wish not
to offend, or give umbrage to the higher powers, by
speaking openly and freely of the downfall of the
Roman Empire.

Churches the temple of God, in which the man of sin will, by vio-
lence, seize the supremacy ; endeavouring to show that he himself
is a God.” Το confirm this interpretation, it may be remarked, that
in other texts of the N. T., the Christian Church is called the
temple of God, or compared to a temple. 1 Cor.3, 9., 16, 17., and
6, 19., 2 Cor. 6, 16., Eph. 2, 20, 21 and 22., 1 Tim. 3, 15., Hebr.
3, 6., 1 Pet.2,5., Rev. 3, 12. Benson also well defends the reading
ὡς Θεὸν,, which words are omitted in several ;antient MSS.,
Versions, and Fathers; while others read ὡς ὅτι ἐστι θεὸς, OF ὡς ἂν
ἦ θεὸς ; Observing, that the antients could not see the beauty and
propriety of it, as we, who have lived to see the accomplishment,
may easily do,

170 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

The ἐν ἑαυτοῦ καιρῴ Mackn. explains, ‘‘ the season
fittest for his usurping and exercising that sinful de-
structive tyranny in the Church, on account of
which he is termed the man of sin, and the son of
perdition.”’

7. τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τ. ἀ., “ For this
mystery of iniquity (or this secret principle of ini-
quity) doth already operate (secretly). Only there
is one that obstructs, and will do so till he be re-
moved.” Austin de Civ. D. L. 20, 19. has the fol-
lowing remarkable words: ‘‘ Some understand the
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε and the τὸ μυστήριον ἤδη κατερ-
γεῖται, of wicked and hypocritical persons in the
Church, till they come to such a number as to make
a great people for Antichrist: and that this is the
mystery of iniquity, because it is as yet a secret.”
On the mystery of iniquity’s working, though more
secretly, in the days of the Apostles, compare Matt.
24, 4, 24, &c. Acts 15, 1 and 24. and 20, 29. Rom.
16327 :and 18.41, Cors4.5)\12.02 Gori 113) bay ee:
Gal. 2, 4 and 3, 1. Col. 2, 18. 1 Thess. 3, 11 and 12.
2 Thess. 3, 6, &c. 1 Tim. 1, 19 and 20. 2 Tim. 2, 16.
&e. and 3, 6, ὅς. and 4, 3 and 4. Tit. 1,19, &c.
Hebr. 3, 11, &c. and 10, 25 and 35. James 2, 1, &c.
14, &c. and 4, 1, &c. and 5, 9. 2 Pet. 2, 1, &c. 1 Joh.
2,18 and 19. and 4,1, 2 and 3. 2 Joh. ver. 7, &c.
3 Joh. ver. 9, 10 and 11. Jude, ver. 3, &c. Rev. c. 2
and 3. (Benson.) I would, however, (with Doddr.)
understand this of the antichristian spirit which be-
gan to work in the Christian Church then, in the
pride and ambition of some ministers, the factious
temper of some Christians, the corruption of many
Christian doctrines, the imposing unauthorized seve-
rities, the worship of angels, &c. of all which things
the Papacy availed itself for acquiring and exercising
its iniquitous dominion. Bishop Newton maintains
that the foundations of Popery were laid in the
Apostle’s days, but the superstructure was raised by
degrees. ᾽

7. ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. Here Chrys. (as cited by

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 171

Benson) annotates: “" When the Roman empire shall
be taken out of the way, then shall the man of sin
come.—When that shall be overthrown, he shall in-
vade the vacant [seat of ] empire, and attempt the
empire both of men and of God.” ‘ How surprising
(says Benson) are these words! How remarkably
plain and express! Can any thing be said more
clearly even now, after this signal event has taken
place ?”

8. Kal τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται 6 ἄνομος. ‘The Apos-
tle’s principal design, ver. 3—12. is not to give a de-
scription of things then existing ; but a prediction of
some remarkable future events. When the obstruct-
ing power is taken away, then it shall no longer be
a mystery of iniquity, or operate secretly; but then
shall that wicked one be openly and publicly re-
vealed. (Benson.)

The words ὃ ὁ Κύριος---αὐτοῦ, Benson thinks, ought
to be put into a parenthesis. Which certainly clears
the connection, and indeed they are in some measure
parenthetical. They may be rendered: ‘ When,
however, the Lord will destroy with the breath of
his mouth, bring to nought at his glorious appear-
ance.” Tw πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος. ‘These words ad-
mit of several senses, none of them inapplicable.
Some Commentators take them to mean the word, or
Gospel; and the ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας, the preach-
ing of it in full glory. Others, the gradual consump-
tion of this wicked one by the preaching of the
Gospel, and his final abolition at the last advent of
Christ. But such a sense cannot well be elicited
from the words. Benson (I think) rightly maintains
that both these clauses relate to one and the same
event; 1. the ease with which Christ will destroy the
man of sin (so Ps. 33, 6—9. Job. 4, 9. Is. 11, 4.
‘* slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips): 9.
the ¢ime when he will effect it.’ Others explain :
* quasi solo afilatu;” since with such the Divine
power can consign men to death and destruction.
And Wets. compares Plaut. Mil. Gl. 1, 1, 16.

1/2 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

Quojus tu legiones difflavasti spiritu quasi ventus
folia. See also Wetstein’s Rabbinical examples. ‘The
sense is the same; but though the latter is the more
poetical and elegant figure, yet it is perhaps the less _
true one.

8. ἀναλώσει and καταργήσει are nearly synony-
mous. Τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ. Some
render this: ‘with or by the brightness,” &c.
Others (as Benson), “ at the brightness, &c. de-
stroy him.” But this is not permitted by the anti-
thesis, and far less elegant ; though the difference in
the sense is not so great. All seem agreed that the
ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ is for παρουσία ἐπιφάνης,
glorious and splendid appearance. ‘The term ἐπιφα-
νεία is often employed by the Classical writers to de-
note any Divine Majesty; and is applied in the
New Testament to Christ’s advent in the flesh; also
to his second advent at the destruction of Jerusalem.
But is especially suitable (as here) to his final advent
tojudgment. See Benson.

9. οὗ ἐστιν ἡ παρουσία---τέρασι ψεύδους. The οὗ is to be
referred to the more remote antecedent ὁ ἄνομος, not
the nearer one αὐτοῦ ; the preceding sentence being
parenthetical. Kar’ ἐνεργείαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ‘ under
the working of Satan ;*jaccompanied with Satanic
and diabolical working.” "Ears, “is to be.” "Ev racy
δυνάμει, Kal σημιείοις, καὶ τέρασι ψεύδους. Some under-
stand this of divers kinds of miracles. But this is
liable to many objections, which are stated by
several Commentators, especially Benson, accord-
cording to the view in which it is considered.” He
apprehends that the same miracle may be called by
the one or the other cf these names, according to
the view in which it is considered. “ By δύναμις
(says he) I understand a miracle, as it is the effect
of an extraordinary or divine power: by σημεῖον may
be meant a miracle, as it is a proof (or sign) of a
prophetic or extraordinary mission: by τέρας, a mi-
racle, as it excites wonder, or admiration, in the
person upon whom it is worked, or in the specta-

tor.” This would, however, seem refining too much.
2 ro)

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 173

Neither, however, can I think that there are meant
three different sorts of miracles. To me it seems
that ἐν δυνάμει ἔσται has the general sense, ““ shall be
accompanied with miracles, or pretended miraculous
powers.” And then the words καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασι
ψεύδους are (I think) exegetical of the preceding (καὶ
signifying even), and represent the species of mira-
cles: and the ψεύδος, which has the force of an ad-
jective, denotes that both shall be fictitious. So
Rom. 15, 9. ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων. The two
words are usually employed together in the New
Testament, like the Hebr. MND and MMs; as Matt.
24, 24. Mark 13, 22. Joh. 4, 48. and elsewhere.
How applicable this also is to the fictitious miracles
of the Church of Rome (which are even at the pre-
sent period asserted by her advocates with a degree
of extravagance and efirontery never exceeded even
in the darkest ages) it is almost needless to remark.
10. καὶ ἐν racy ἀγάπη τῆς ἀδικίας ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμέ-
νοις, *fand by every unrighteous deceit and impos-
ture ;” the genitive of the substantive being for an
adjective ; avery common idiom. ’Ey, among. By
the ἀπολλυμ. Benson understands “such as are lost to
all sense of virtue and piety, or the desperately and
incorrigibly wicked. It is opposed (he observes) to
the saved or reformed, 1 Cor. 1, 18. 2 Cor. 2, 15.
and 4, 3. But this is going too far. It seems to
signifv, “by the wretched victims of their deceit.”
᾿Ανθ᾽ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην---αὐτοῦς. The ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (which, as
Grot. observes, is a formula denoting that something
is inflicted as a punishment, or conferred as a recom-
pense) carries with it an ellipsis, which may be thus
supplied: “ and a prey they will be to such delu-
sions, because,” &c. ‘Lhe phrase ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας
οὐκ ἐδέξατο is a very unusual (and perhaps Hebraic)
one, on whose sense the Commentators differ. Grot.
renders: ‘ they have not received the blessed truth
made known to us by the Gospel.” But this sense
cannot be elicited from the words, which are better
explained by most Interpreters, “ they did not care

174 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

to receive the truth.” There seems to be a blending
of two phrases together: ‘they did not love the
truth, and they would not receive it.” ‘There is, too
(as Beza and Benson think), a meiosis. As to the
sense assigned by some, “they will profess the
truth, but not love it (as Tim. 3. 5.);” though well
suited to the persons in question, it seems very pre-
carious.

10. εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι, Benson renders: ‘‘ though it
would have been their everlasting salvation.

11. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, “ and for this cause ;”’ i. 6. be-
cause they have not had any love of the truth. For,
as Benson observes, there is no effectual preservative
from fatal error but the sincere love of truth and
virtue. Πέμψει αὐτοῖς ἐνέργειαν πλάνης, 1. 6. “God
will permit error to work its dire effects among
them.’’ For, as all the best Commentators antient
and modern are agreed, we are here to resort to that
idiom by which God is figuratively said to do a thing
which he only permits to be done. So Theophyl.:
πέμψει ἀντὶ τοῦ παραχωρήσει αὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν. ‘ Thus
(adds he) as they first rejected the truth, so then
(Jod leaves them, and error prevails over them.” So
Benson: ‘ God leaves wicked men to their own
choice, and turns their sin into their punishment.”

11. εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς τῷ ψεύδει, ““ so that they
believe the lie (put upon them).” Eis denotes, not
the final cause, but the effect. By the edd. Mackn.
would understand fransubstantiation. But it should
seem to be meant, in a general way, of the whole
system of falsehood promulgated by the man of sin,
and his adherents; though it is true, transubstantia-
tion is the fundamental * lie” from which have pro-
ceeded most others of the Romish Church.

12. ἵνα κριθώσι ravres—adixia. ‘The best Commen-
tators are agreed, that ἵνα is here (as very often)
eventual ; ‘*So that they may all be condemned ;”
(κριν. for κατακρι) The damned of our Common Ver-
sion means no more; an use of the word which is
well illustrated from one of our old writers by the

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 175

learned Dr. Maltby, in the note to the second volume
of his eloquent and masterly Sermons. In the same
manner Theophyl. explains as follows: οὐκ εἶπεν ἵνα
κολασθώσι, ἀλλὰ κατακριθῶσι, ὧστε εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπο-
λογήτους. Yet this condemnation necessarily carries
with it the idea of punishment both in this world and
the next: for such mischievous delusions lead to
both.

On the opposition between ἀληθεία and ἀδικία see
the note on ver. 10. By having pleasure in wicked-
ness is meant, complacently dwelling upon such false
doctrines as foster error, and encourage vice. Dr.
Doddridge here supposes this to be levelled against
the gainful frauds of the Romish priests, who impose
on the people known delusions, merely out of regard
to secular interest. But I fear that to others also, the
words of St. Peter (respecting Balaam) may be too
applicable: ‘He loved the wages of unrighteous-
ness.”

13. ἡμεῖς δε---σωτηρίαν. The Apostle had said at
1, 3.“ We ought to give thanks unto God always for
you, brethren,” &c. Having, since that, assured
them of Christ’s coming to destroy the wicked, and
make happy the righteous; and that the day of the
Lord would not come till there had been a dreadful
apostacy in the Christian Church, and the man of sin
be revealed; he repeats his kind commendations of
the Thessalonians, and says again, ** We ought to
give thanks unto God always for you, brethren,” &e.
(Benson. )

The sense is: “ We are bound to give perpetual
thanks to God for you (namely, that it is not the
case with you, but) that God hath, from the begin-
ing, chosen you to salvation,’ ἅς. I see not any
grounds for rendering ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, as do. some recent
Commentators, inter primos ; a sense unauthorized,
and not a little frigid. Other interpretations yet
less probable have been brought forward; but the
only one that has the stamp of truth is that of the
antients, and almost all the early moderns, who refer

176 2 THESSALONANS, CHAP. 1].

it to the eternal purposes of God, in the election and
calling of the Thessalonians to the Christian faith,
And to this the Apostle frequently alludes at the
commencement of his Epistles to Gentile Churches.
The passage is well paraphrased by Theophyl. (from
Chrysos. ) thus: διὰ τοῦτο εὐχαριστοῦμεν, ὅ ὅτι ἐξελέξατο
ὑμάς ὃ (Geis, kal προώρισεν εἰς σωτηρίαν, ἀξίους δηλαδὴ
προγνούς. See Benson.

The ἐν ἁγιασμώ--- ἀληθείας, I think, points out the
means by which this is to be effected ; ἐν signifying
5, by. The following may be supplied: ‘ (and
ΠΤ will be effected) by the sanctification of the
Holy Spirit, and by a faith in the truth (as especially
promotive of it.)” By the πίστει ἀληθείας, Benson
says, is meant such a belief of truth as shall produce
moral obedience ; referring to 1 Pet. 1, 22. Joh. 17,
17. Acts 15,9. But this seems tco precarious. AL
I would venture to infer is, (what the antient Com-
mentators tell us) that these words have reference
to the separate parts allotted to God and to man in
the business of human salvation. See the note on
Phil. 2,13. I cannot touch on the many varieties of
interpretation to be found among the Commentators
on the present passage, yet I must not omit to enter
my protest against that license by which Mackn.
and some recent Commentators take πνευμ. to mean
no more than the mind, or rational principle ; which
is inconsistent with the strong expression preceding,
ἁγιασμὸς Πνεύματος.

14. εἰς ὃ ἐκάλεσεν----Χριστοῦ. The εἰς ὃ (for which
some MSS. read εἰς ἣν, by emendation,) refers to
the whole foregoing clause, the being sanctified,
&c. “ Unto all this God hath called you by our
Gospel, as preached by me.” So Theophyl. : εἰς
ποῖον ; εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι διὰ τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ τῆς πίστεως.
The words following, εἰς περιποίησιν, &c. state the
purpose for which that. Gospel was preached, namely,
the obtaining of the glory (i. 6. participation in the
glory) of Jesus Christ, i. e. salvation, which is often
represented under the term glory, honour, &c. So

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 177

περιποίησις is used in 1 Thess. 5,9. and Hebr. 10, 39.
Some interpret regi. of life and salvation. But this
is very harsh. It is truly observed by Benson, that
the end of calling men into the Christian Church,
and purifying their souls thereby, is, that they may
obtain the glory which is promised by our Lord
Jesus Christ, will be conferred by him, and enjoyed
in his presence. See Joh. 14, 3. and 17, 22. Rom. 8,
17 and 18. 1 Thess. 5, 9. :

15. ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, στήκετε. In the στήκατε there
is a military metaphor; as Gal. 5, 1. 1 Cor. 16, 18.
Phil. 4, 1. Στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις,
‘stand firm, and hold fast,” &c. Παραδόσεις signi-
fies, not traditions in the usual sense, but doctrines,
precepts, and instructions,;* as 3, 6. Matt. 15, 2.
1 Cor. 11,2. Koaretv, like κατέχειν in 1 Cor. 11, 2.
kal καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε,
Mark 7, 8., signifies yielding steady obedience to.
The διὰ λόγου denotes viva voce instruction; the δι᾽
ἐπιστολῆς, epistolary: for the singular will not prove
that the Apostle referred to his former Epistle (as

* Theophyl. here pleads for the authority of ¢radition in enjoin-
ing us to reverence certain articles of faith not contained in Serip-
ture, but handed cown by oral tradition. “ Now (observes Ben-
son) what does the Church of Rome know by oral tradition, which
we do not know as well without it?” Besides, the tradition fre-
quently mentioned and contended for by the Fathers, was not the
oral tradition which the Papists contend for, but the allegorical in-
terpretation of particular texts, started at first perhaps by some
persons of note, and handed down, by word or writing, to succeeding
ages. ‘They therefore supposed them to be grounded upon some
passage of Scripture, and not to’ be such traditions as have no foun-
dation there. If one could be equally certain of the truth and au-
thenticity of any other Apostolic traditions, as of those contained in
the writings of the Apostles, undoubtedly they would deserve great
regard. fut, after the Apostles had, by Divine illumination,
preached the Christian doctrine; under the guidance of the same
spirit of truth, they committed to writing the very same doctrine
(or tradition), and that very much with a view to prevent Christians
from being imposed upon by other and-false traditions.” See also
Mackn. and Whitby, and an able Tract of Dr. Miller, entitled an His-
torical view of the Plea of Tradition as maintained in the Church of.
Rome.

VOL. VIII. N

178 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II.

Benson supposes) ; δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς signifies literally im,
or by, any Epistle, i. e. the former, the present, or
any other that he should hereafter write them.

16,17. ὁ ἀγαπήσας---ἐν χάριτι. It is observed by
Theophyl., that after exhortation comes prayer ;
which is really helping them. Ae, autem. The ἡμῶν
is to be referred to all Christians; q.d. ‘ our com-
mon Lord.” The force of the sentence is: “" I pray
our Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father to,” &c.
From hence it is easy to prove the Deity of Christ.
See Lesl. ap. D’Oyley. Καὶ πάτηρ, “ even our Fa-
ther;” as Eph. 1,3. 4,6. 5, 20. and often. Koppe
and Rosenm. observe, that the words ὃ ἀγάπησας
pas καὶ δοὺς are to be conjoined, and rendered “ qui
pro suo in nos favore dat,” &c. But this is confound-
ing the Oriental and Occidental styles of writing ;
which, in the translation of any work of antiquity,
good taste would require us to avoid. Nor do I
agree with those Commentators, that παρακλ. and
éar. are synonymous with σωτηρίας and εὐδαιμονίας.
This sort of interpretation seems, indeed, to shorten
our labour; but by introducing confusion, it, in
reality, increases it. ‘The two notions are better
kept separate. If any deviation from the common
rendering of the words be thought necessary, I
should propose that καὶ be rendered even ; which is
supported by the antients. ‘Thus Theophyl.: Δοὺς
παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν. ἹἸΠοίαν δὲ ταύτην ; Τὴν ἐλπίδα,
Φησὶ, τῶν μελλόντων" αὕτη γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀνέχουσα τὰς
καρδίας ἡμῶν καταπιπτούσας ἐν τοῖς πειρασμιῖς, ἡ τῶν
μελλόντων ἀγαθών ἐλπὶς. And so Benson: ““ Their
consolation arose from the hope of everlasting life
and happiness. Tit. 2,13. 1 Thess. 4, 13, &c. and 5,
11. 1 Pet. 1, 3 and 4. and was therefore called ever-
lasting.’ He also observes, that under the guise of
prayer the Apostle excites their minds by setting be-
fore them the pledges of God's care and providence.
By adding ἐν χάριτι, he represses all self-compla-
cence.

17. παρακαλέσαι---ἀγαθῴῷ may be rendered, ‘‘ com-

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. II. 179

fort your hearts (as 2 Cor. 1, 4. 7, 6. Eph. 6, 22.
1 Thess. 4, 18. 5, 11.) under all your affliction.”
Καὶ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ Kalegyw ἀγαθώ. The
sense of these words is (I think) very imperfectly
seen and represented by most modern Commentators
(including Koppe), who take them for εἰς πάντα ad
γον καὶ ἔργον ἄγαθον, with this sense, ‘‘ ut que recta
sunt ea loguamini et agatis.” It should seem that in
this passage the scope of the Apostle is. to represent
the two chief ways by which the love of God, under
the influence of his Word and blessed Spirit, aids us
in this our earthly struggle: 1. by comforting our
hearts under afflictions and persecutions; 2. by sup-
porting us amidst all temptations, whether to aban-
don frue doctrine, or virtuous and holy practice.

On the παρακαλέσαι (which I have just explained)
there is no difference of opinion. That the ἀγάθω
refers to both λόγῳ and ἔργῳ, is clear; but it must be
modified in the application: and in the former case
(1 think) it must denote sound doctrine, i. e. (as
Koppe says) the ἀληθεία spoken of at ver. 10, as op-
posed to the πλάνῃ and ἀπάνη just after: which is
supported by the authority of Theophyl. (from
Chrys.), who paraphrases and explains thus: στηρί-
Ear ὑμᾶς ἔντε δόγμασιν ὀρθοῖς, καὶ πράξεσιν ἀγαθοῖς,
ὥστε μὴ παραφέρεσθαι, μηδὲ καταπίπτειν ἐπὶ τοῖς συμ.-
βαίνουσι" τοῦτο ἔστι παράκλησις" Ὁ γὰρ ἐστηριγμένος,
ὅσαπερ ἂν πάθη, φέρει γεναίως, καὶ οὐ παρατρέπεται" διὰ
μὲν τοῦ τὸ δόγμα. τηρεῖν ὀρθὸν πεπεισμιένος περὶ τῶν μιελ-
λόντων βεβαίως" διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀγαθὸν βίον ἔχειν, χαίρων ὅτι
ody ὡς κακουργὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Θεοῦ λειτουογὸς πάσχει.

Most Commentators think the ἐν λόγῳ is for διὰ
λόγου, &ec. But this is not necessary. ‘The phrase
literally signifies, “ may he support and confirm you
in the profession of sound doctrine, and in the per-
formance of right practice.”

ν 9

180 2 THESSALONTANS, CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.

VERSE 1. rpocedyeobe—tpas. The Apostle, with
his accustomed humility, desires their prayers: but
as the περὶ ἡμῶν is suspended on an ἵνα following, I
think it should be rendered, “ pray respecting us
that,” &c. He does not ask their prayers generally,
or for any worldly blessing, but especially that the
Gospel may, through his means, have free course,
namely, by the removal of the obstacles under which
he then laboured. Or the ἡμῶν may also include
Silvanus and Timothy, especially as they had assist-
ed in planting the Gospel at Thessalonica; and
this is confirmed by the καθὼς πρὸς ὑμᾶς.

The λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου τρέχῃ is well compared by
Koppe with the Hebr. Mm 727 3, Ps. 147, 15.
his word runneth very swiftly. I would compare
Eurip. Ion 531. Matth. τρέχων ὁ μῦθος ἂν σοι τἀμὰ ση-
μήνειεν av. ‘The sense is, “be speedily transmitted
from region to region.” Kai δοξάϑηται, “and be
glorified, approve itself to me, and gain acceptance
and faithful fulfilment of its requisitions.” For that
also seems to.be meant; and thus in the insertion.
καθὼς καὶ πρὸς ὑμᾶς is couched a delicate praise.
Πρὸς, among.

2. καὶ ἵνα ῥυσθῶμιεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀτόπων Kal πονηρῶν ἀν-
᾿ βρώπων, “* And (in order thereto) that we may be
delivered from (the persecutions and opposition) of,”
&c. On the sense of ἀτοπ. Commentators are not
agreed. Most render it unreasonable; some, per-
verse ; Mackn. (following here, as often, a precari-
ous etymology) brutish, (men who have or ought to
have, no place in society.*) Most recent Commen-
tators avoid the difficulty by making it synonymous

* This cacoethes etymologisandi has here infected stronger
minds than Macknight. ‘Thus Erasm.: ‘qui nullo loco conveni-
ant, quales sunt heretici.”. Doddr.: ‘‘ whom no topics can work
on.” Est.: “ who wander from place to place, persecuting the
Gospel,”

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 181

with πονηρῶν. But a proper regard to the words
following, οὐ yap πάντων ἡ πίστις might have taught
them better. Crell. has here been most successful.
He understands it of those “ quorum mens prava
est, et judicium corruptum, ac perversum, distor-
tumque; qui absurdé de rebus sentiunt, nec se in
certum veritatis iter, ob contumaciam ac pervicaciam
animi, flecti patiuntur.’ The πονηρ. denotes vicious,
immoral men; though it may have an adjunct notion
of malignity ; and both dispositions unfit men for the
discerning of the truth.

2. οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. The sense of these words
is strangely perverted by the recent Commentators,
who render it, “ for there are few good men whom
we can safely trust ;” taking οὐ πάντων for ὀλίγων.
And so Howe, Homberg, Schoettg., Koppe, Ro-
senm., and Valpy. But this signification of πίστις is
unprecedented both in the Scriptural and Classical
writers ; and therefore the interpretation must fall to
the ground, which indeed yields a very frigid sense.
Others, as Doddr. and Koppe, take πίστις to denote
integrity and candour. But this yields a miserably
feeble and far-fetched sense. (See also Mackn.) The
same may be said of Benson’s version, ‘‘ for all men
do not embrace the Christian faith, but many oppose
1; which both requires a meiosis, and must be
helped out by another sentence ; than which nothing
can be more harsh. I see no reason to abandon the
interpretation of Chrysost. and the other antients,
and also the early moderns, by which the words are
taken in their plain and natural sense, i. e. (as Theo-
. phyl. explains) ‘‘all men do not believe, but the
worthyonly.” And thus, after discussing at large the
various interpretations, Wolf expounds. ‘The Cal-
vinists, indeed, render: “ for faith is not in the
power of all men.” And, [ confess, this seems most
agreeable to the force of the idiom. I must, how-
ever, protest against having the text urged on the
controversy respecting free will, &c.; since it is plain

182 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

that the non posse is here, as very often in Scripture,
applied populariter, to moral, not physical, impossi-
bility. So Crell.: ““ Fidei non sunt omnes capaces,
non per se et natura sua; cum omnes Deus ad ag-
nitionem veritatis pervenire, atque ita salvari cupiat,
omnesque, qui modo non sunt mente capti, natura
sua et credenda intelligere, et praestanda facere, si
modo velint, possint; sed ob susceptam et acquisi-
tam sponte animi improbitatem; qua in habitatum
versa, id quod natura sua erat possibile, redditur
quodammodo impossibile. Breviter, facultatem ab
illis removet proximain, ut vocant, non remotam ;
illa enim voluntatis, hac nature.” And so Dr.
Wells (whose interpretation is here, with great
judgment, adopted by D’Oyley and Mant): “ They
have it not, or cannot attain to it; forasmuch as by
their wickedness, ill practices, obstinate prejudices,
and the like, they deprive-themselves of the same ;”
that is, by being ἀτόποι and πονηροὶ, they unfit them-
selves for the reception of truth. .

8. πιστὸς δὲ ἐστιν 6 Κύριος ---πονηροῦ. Those Com-
mentators who in the preceding verse interpret πίσ-
τις fidelity, here suppose an antithesis. But it has
been shown that that interpretation is without foun-
dation ; and (as Benson observes) “‘ the Apostle often
uses a word in allusion to what he had just been say--
ing, and that ina somewhat different sense.” Be-
sides, πιστὸς ὁ Kugios ἐστι is a frequent formula with
the Apostle; as 1 Cor. 1, 8 and 9. and 1 Thess. 5,
24. It here signifies: “ he will assuredly finish the
good work he hath begun.” The sense may be simply
expressed thus: ‘ And this the Lord will do; for
he is faithful to his promises; he will confirm, &c.
Στηρίξει, “ will establish you in true doctrine.” See
2,2and 8. 1 Thess. 8, 3 and 18. Kal φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ
πονηροῦ. Here the Commentators are divided in
opinion ; some taking τοῦ πονηροῦ for a neuter, 1. 6. evil,
either of calamity, or apostacy: others, for ἃ mascu-
line, i. 6. the author of evil, Satan. And this is sup-
ported by the authority of the antients, and, being

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 183

far more agreeable to the context, is (no doubt)
the true interpretation.

4. πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, “ Now we trust
in the Lord’s protection over you, that what things
we command you, ye both do and will do.” Such is
the literal sense. But there is something more to
be attended to than a cursory view would suggest.
The antients, as Chrys. and Theophyl., consider this
and the preceding as representing the co-operation
of divine and human power in working out salvation.
The στηρίξει, φυλάξει, and πεποίθαμεν ἐν Kupiw they
refer to the former ; the ποιεῖτε and ποιήσατε to the
latter. Thus Theophyl. observes: δεῖ μὲν yap τὸ
πᾶν ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν ῥίπτειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεργοῦντας καὶ αὐτοὺς.
And nearly the same view seems to have been taken
by Benson. But (if I mistake not) it is precarious
and unfounded. Yet there is a certain harshness in
the words; since to say that he “ trusts in the protec-
tion of God that they do what he enjoins,” would
seem incongruous. ‘The confusion occasioned by
ποιεῖτε may be removed, by supposing that the sen-
tence consists of two members condensed into one,
and which must be separated to clear the sense.
There appears to be a dilogia in πεποίθαμεν, which is
applicable to both members, with a slight change of
sense. I would render: “ Now we trust (and hope)
that (upon the whole) ye are doing the things which
we command you; and we trust in the Lord’s as-
sistance that ye will continue to do them.” ‘Thus
all is clear.

5. 6 δὲ Kopios—Xpiorov. Koppe, after a minute
discussion of the context and scope of the Apostle,
lays down the following as the sense: ‘* Non dubito,
vos his preceptionibus meis esse obsecuturos, modo
intentis animis et Dei-ipsius exemplum in amandis
beandisque suis hominibus, et Christiexemplum in
tolerandis gravissimis calamitatibus constanter respi-
ciatis. He takes, together with Rosenm., ἀγάπη Θεοῦ to
denote the love shown by God towards men.” But,
I confess, I see not how this sense can be made out

184 ᾿ 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. IIf.

without great violence. There seems no reason to
abandon the common interpretation.* The sense
may be thus expressed : ‘ And now (in order there-
to) may the Lord (by his Holy Spirit) direct your
hearts unto the love of God.” The ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ
must (I think) be taken in a popular sense (like
ἀγαπᾷν τὸν Θεὸν at Rom. 8, 28. τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν
Θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθὸν. 1 Cor. 2, 9. ἃ ἐτοίμασεν
6 Θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 1 Cor. 8, 3. and else-
where), to denote “such a love of God as shall pro-
duce faith in all that he reveals, and obedience
to all that he commands,” especially in showing love
unto men for God’s sake, without which our love is
not genuine. See 1 Joh. 4, 12. 19,20 & 21. 5, 2.
But as obedience to the commands of God often
requires of us self-denial and privation, and fre-
quently involves evil, and since he that would come
after Christ must take up his cross daily and follow
him, so this was especially the case with Christians
in the Apostolic age; and therefore the Apostle
adds, εἰς τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which does not
mean (as Rosenm. and Schleus. explain) the patience
itself of Christ in bearing calamities, but a patient
endurance, suffering for righteousness, after the
example of Christ ; or a patient waiting for Christ.
Both these interpretations are supported by the an-
tients. Thus Theophyl.: ἢ ἵνα ὑπομένωμιεν, we ἐκεῖνος
umenevey’ ἢ ἵνα pel’ ὑπομονῆς ἀναμένωμεν τὸν Χριστὸν,
καὶ μὴ ἀπελπίξωμιν, ἀλλὰ πιστεύωμεν βεβαίως, ὅτι ἃ
ἐπηγγείλατο πληρώσει. Either is agreeable to the

* I cannot but observe that this and many other false interpreta-
tions which I have lately animadverted upon, seem to have been
introduced from certain doctrinal prejudices, a vain fear of that
bug-bear, Calvinism. But it is one thing to form a body of Scrip-
tural annotation, and another to form a body of divinity. It seems
most unwarrantable tosuppress, or explain away, the sense of all
three passages, which tend to show man’s dependence upon God in
the work of salvation. For, after all, we may be well assured (in
the words of the Poet) that '

** Oars alone can ne’er prevail To reach the distant ccast ;
“ The breath of heaven must swell the sail, Orall the labour’s lost.”

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 185

usus loquendi; but the former seems the more suit-
able to the context. Yet Benson prefers the latter ;
though he also proposes to understand it of the pa-
‘tient expectation of Christ’s second advent ; which,
perhaps, may be zncluded in the former.

6—16. One may observe the address with which
the Apostle first makes use of soothing language to
show his affection for them, and to soften the re-
proofs he was about to introduce, as proceeding
alone from love. Now these reproofs were meant to
correct a spirit which, while he was at Thessalonica,
the Apostle had remarked among some Christians,
namely, adisposition to be idle, and throw themselves
on the bounty of their richer and more industrious
brethren for maintenance. ‘These he had before
enjoined to ““ quietly work, and eat their own meat.”
As, however, his injunctions had been little attended
to, he repeats them with greater authority and ear-
nestness; strictly commanding the other Christians
to break off all familiar intercourse with such, in
order thereby to bring them to shame and re-
pentance.

Παραγγέλλομεν. A term used of all strict orders
from superiors, as from kings to their subjects, or
generals to their soldiers. ‘The sense, then, is: ‘* we
strictly command you.” ‘To make it the more im-
pressive, the Apostle, as on some other occasions,
adds ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Kupiov. The construction is:
(ὥστε) ὑμᾶς στέλλεσθαι. And στελλ. is of the middle
voice for στέλλειν, or ὑποστέλλειν ἑαυτὸν, “ withdraw
yourselves from (all intercourse with).” Theophyl.
explains, χωρίϑεσθαι aro. Numerous Classical pas~
sages are here adduced by the philological Commen-
tators, but none of them to the present purpose, and
more fit for a Greek Lexicon than a commentary on
the New Testament. :

Ilavres (which corresponds to the Heb. b>) signi-
fies each. With respect to the expression ἀτἄκτως
περιπατοῦντος, it might be interpreted of disobedience
to the orders of the Apostle ; but from what follows,

186 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

especially ver. 12., it is plain that the Apostle has in
view a living without labour at their trades; and,
as vices run in clusters, so idleness draws with it
many other vices, which no pretences of attending
to spiritual concerns will effectually prevent. “And
this, the phrase ἀτάκτως περιπατεῖν, meaning an un-
settled, disorderly, and sometimes dissoll utd? life, will
very well characterize.*

7,8. The Apostle here very properly calls in his
own example in aid of his precepts. See 1 Thess. 1, 6.
᾿Ατακτεῖν is for the ἀτακτῶώς περιπατεῖν at ver. 6., and
is fully explained at ver. 12. The sense is, “ did
not thus walk disorderly.” “Aprov φαγεῖν (Hebr.
ἘΞΙΤ 728) παρὰ τινὸς is a common phrase for, “ to
receive of any one what shall provide us with suste-
nance.” Awpeav, which usually signifies gratis, for
nought, here denotes, “ without working for it.”
Now the Apostle received, indeed, of his employers
money for his sustenance, but Ἢ rendered work in
return for it, as is suggested by what follows, which
is exegetical of the preceding, the participle ἐργα-
Pémevon being suspended on “ἐφάγομεν. The other
expressions have been all explained before. Com-
pare 1 Cor. 4, 12. Acts 20, 34. and 1 Thess. 1, 5.
and 2, 9.

9. οὐκ ὅτι οὐχ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν, i.e. τοῦ δωρεὰν ἄρτον
ᾧΦαγεῖν παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, on which see 1 Cor. 9, 6. and 1
Thess. 2,6. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δώμεν ὑ. ἐ. τ. μι. ἡ.
ΤΓύπος signifies exemplar. “5661 Cor. 10, 1. 1 Tim.
4, 12. and Phil. 3, 17. Benson has here; and at 1
Thess. 2, 9., assigned six reasons why St. Paul did
this. Of these the Apostle (he observes) urges dif-
ferent ones in different places, and under different
circumstances.

* On what caused this disorderly spirit, writers differ. Most
ascribe it to the expectation of Christ's speedy advent. But the
Apostle had not encouraged this, but the contrary. It may, I think
(as I have before observed), be ascribed to that strong mental ex-
citement which, in the working classes, tends to produce an indis-
position to bodily labour.

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 187

10. εἴ τις οὐ θέλει---ἐσθιέτω. An adagial sentence,
with which the philological Commentators (as Grot.,
Wets., &c.) compare numerous ones from the Clas-
sical and Rabbinical writers. These, on so trite a
subject, I may be excused for omitting. It is well
remarked by Grot.: ““ Amant Apostoli, ut et Chris-
tus, sententiis bonis uti, que in ore erant populi aut
sapientum.”

11. ἀκούομεν yao. The yap is rendered, by Koppe,
et tamen. I am, indeed, no friend to that excessive
minuteness with which some dwell on particles of
this kind ; but it is preferable to the other extreme,
of arbitrarily fixing on senses, however unusual.
Here the connection is plainly this: ‘‘ (I am induced
to now issue these orders) for I hear,” &c. The
ἀτακτώς περιπ. has been explained above. In the
words μηδὲν ἐργαϑομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαϑομιένους there
is thought to be ἃ paronomasia. And as the Apostle
elsewhere not unfrequently uses that figure, he pro-
bably did sohere. The term zepiepy. is one of consi-
derable extent, and therefore uncertainty. It pro-
perly signifies to labour exceedingly; 2dly, devote
superfluous labour ; 3dly, to labour or give one’s at-
tention to things which have no relation to one’s own
proper business ; which is usually the case with busy,
meddling, pragmatical persons. And this is, by
most Commentators, supposed to be the sense here.
The recent ones understand it of wandering up and
down to collect scandal, and retailing it in places
where it may be acceptable; and thus gaining a mi-
serable living, like the parasites of antient times.
But this is too hypothetical and visionary. The
most extensive signification will here (as usual) be
the truest.

On this busy, meddling, detracting, and scandal-
bearing spirit, Benson has some admirable remarks.
See also the excellent passage of Lev. 44, 22., cited
by Wets.

12. τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις---ἐσβθίωσιν. Tlagayy. διὰ του
Κυρίου ἡ.}1. X. is synonymous with the παραγγ. ἐν

188 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

ὀνόματι τοῦ K. X. at ver. 6., where see the note.
Here the Apostle calls earnest exhortation and
entreaty in aid of solemn injunction..

The μετὰ ἡσυχίας is opposed to that unsettled spirit
which indisposed them for work, and set them ona
disorderly life. The phrase τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον ἐσθιεῖν
seems to be adagial. Many similar expressions are
cited from the Classical writers by Grot. and Wets.,
descriptive of the contrary. So the parasite is said
to eat cibum atienum, alienam quadram, ἀλλοτριοφά-
yew. I must not omit to observe that on this portion
of Scripture Dr. Maltby has an admirable Sermon,
vol. 2.

13. ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοὶ, μὴ ἐκκακήσητε καλοποιοῦντες.
There is some difference of opinion on the sense of
these words, the difficulty hinges on the kaa. Many
modern Commentators take it in the general sense
recte agere. So Koppe, who renders: ‘* Vos vero
in omni virtutis studio constantes estote.” But this
is little agreeable to what went before, which re-
quires something more special; and I agree with the
antients and many eminent moderns, that it must
be understood of the practice of beneficence to-
wards poorer brethren. So καλὸν ποιεῖν at Gal. 6, 9.
(a very similar passage), and ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν at Matt.
3, 6., and often. Besides, as καλὸν ποιεῖν is a very
rare phrase, scarcely occurring any where else, and
as the Apostle has used καλὸν ποιεῖν in the sense of
beneficence elsewhere, we can hardly suppose he
would intend any other here. Yet I cannot assent.
to the antients that the sense is: ‘‘ Let not their
sloth hinder your charity in giving them what is
necessary to preserve life.” The Apostle could
never, I think, mean thaé: for what is thus given, in
order to keep alive the idle and disorderly, might be
better employed in encouraging the industrious
poor. I agree with Benson that it is probable the
Apostle’s caution was intended chiefly to guard them
against being so affected with the unworthiness of

2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III. 189

some, as to be weary of well-doing to any, even to
proper and deserving objects. And, thus under-
stood, this precept comes in very opportunely, and
with the greatest propriety. For, as the ingratitude
and unworthiness of some are very apt to render us
cold and indifferent in doing good to others, the
Apostle exhorted such as were able, to continue to
show acts of kindness and beneficence, and not to
be weary in well-doing to proper objects ; notwith-
standing some were idle and deserved not to be
supported by them.” I would here compare Synes:
177 a. (Ep. 30.) εὐ οἶδ᾽ ὅτι μιὴ ἀπαγορεύσεις εὖ ποιών.

14, 15. εἰ δὲ τις---σημειοῦσθε. To λόγω ἡμῶν, “our
word, ororder.” For λόγος, like the Heb. 37, is a
general term extending to order of every kind. Διὰ
τῆς ἐπιστολῆς. ‘These words are, by some eminent
Commentators, as Pisc., Grot., Le Clerc, Rosenm.,
and Bengel, joined with τοῦτον σημειούσθε, in this
sense: “send me word by letter of that man.” But
this seems very harsh and frigid, and little agreeable
to what follows; and, moreover, it would require
ds ἐπιστολῆς. See Crell. and Benson. I see no
reason to abandon the interpretation of most mo-
derns (supported by the authority of the antients),
who construe the words with the preceding τῷ λόγῳ
ἡμῶν, and take τῆς for ταύτης. This sense of σημει-
οὐσθαι (set a mark upon) may not be frequent ; but
it is justified by authority (See Steph. Thes. Nov.
Edit.), and is supported by what follows ; whereas
the other sense proposed is supported neither by
authority nor by the context. Loesner aptly com-
pares Phil. Jud. 560 a. δυσὶν ἤδη μαρτυρίας σημειω-
σάμενος TO μηδὲν ἔχθος ὑποτύφεσθαι.

14. καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε αὐτῷ, “ have no familiar
intercourse with him ;” like στέλλεσθε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ just
before. Compare 1 Cor.5,9 & 11. The words ἵνα
ἐντραπῇ Suggest the reason for this, namely, that the
shame thereof might bring him to repentance. See
Tit. 2, 8. The words following καὶ μὴ---ἀδελφόν are
meant to further explain the purpose of the exclu-

190 2 THESSALONIANS, CHAP. III.

sion, and to show how far it should be extended.
It was to be considered as a νουθεσία, having in view
not so much the punishment as the reformation of
the offender. @dly, The conduct adopted with re-
gard to him was not to be so far removed from
friendliness as to border on hostility. The καὶ sig-
nifies and yet. The phrase ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθαι is fre-
quent in the Classical writers. See Wetstein’s ex-
amples.

16. αὐτὸς δὲ---ὁμωῶν. See the note on Thess. 5, 3.

17, 18. 6 doracpis—ypadw. Thus far St. Paul
had used the pen of ascribe. But the conclusion
he writes with his own hand. Seec. 1. Cor. 16, 27.
Gal. 16,11. Philem. 19. This, as has been before
observed, was the Apostle’s usual custom, for the
purpose of assuring the persons to whom it was ad-
dressed, that the Epistle was not supposititious. Such,
Koppe observes, is the plain sense of the passage ;
while the other interpretations proposed do manifest
violence to the words.

191

FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

CHAP. I.

VersE 1. Παῦλος, ἀπόστολος I. X. See Whitby
ap. Slade, and the notes of Benson. Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν
Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, “by the command of God our
Saviour.” The name σωτὴρ is applicable to God as
well as to Jesus Christ; since He sent the Saviour
for us men and for our salvation. See Luke 1, 47.
1 Tim. 4, 10., and other passages adduced by Grot.
Why God is so called can need no explanation ;
since He not only delivers us from evil, even the
curse of the broken law, but confers blessings mani-
fold, spiritual, and temporal. ‘‘This (says Benson)
may teach us not to look upon God, the Father, as
all justice and terror; and our Lord Jesus Christ, as
all love and mercy. The original of our redemption,
through Jesus Christ, was the love and goodness of
the Father.”

1. τὴς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ‘the cause of our hope ;” by a
metonymy of perpetual occurrence in Scripture.

2, Τιμοθέω γνησίῳ τέκνω ἐν πίστει, “our genuine,
real, and spiritual son.” On Timothy see the Histo-
rical Introduction, especially Benson in loc., who
has shown that this may indicate that Timothy was
his convert ; since such are called his children. See
Gal. 4, 19. 1 Thess. 2,7 & 11. Tit. 1, 4. Philem. 10.
compared with 1 Cor. 4, 14&5. Or he may be so
called, as being of a disposition similar to the
Apostle’s. See Joh. 8,44. and Matt.13,10. And

192 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

in Phil. 2, 2. he uses the same expression. Compare
Phil. 2, 22., where see the notes. ‘The former, how-
ever, is the more probable opinion; and the term
seems to be the more appropriate, since (as Rosenm.
remarks) there seems reason to think from 2 Tim.
8, 6., that he had been committed by his mother to
Paul from his earliest years, in order to be formed
after his model, by his precepts and example, so as
to come to the stature of the fullness, &c. On the
terms χάρις, ἔλεος, and εἰρήνη, which are generally
found united at the commencement of the Epistles,
I have before treated.

8. καθὼς παρεκάλεσα---ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, “as when
I departed into Macedonia, I desired thee to remain
at Ephesus (so now I exhort thee) to strictly charge
certain persons, that they teach no doctrine different
from ours.” Such, I conceive is the general sense ;
the words themselves are plain; but the construc-
tion is somewhat perplexed and elliptical. There is,
as the best Commentators are agreed, a trajectio.
The πορευόμενος εἰς M., must be closely united with
καθὼς magex., &c.; which is no other than the figure
anacoluthon, so common to the Apostle; the pro-
tasis at καθὼς, as or because, being without an apo-
dosis, which is left to be supplied. Gn the mode of
doing this the Commentators are not agreed. The
best interpreters supply οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ; which
seems the most natural method: and so Benson.
Others think that the ἵνα ragayyeiays, is an impera-
tive, by the ellipsis of ¢ga.; which they defend by
some examples, but from writers infimcee Greecitatis.
(See Koppe.) Others seek the apodosis at ver. 18. ;
which (as Heinr. remarks) is too violent an hyper-
baton. In the Syriac Version the οὕτω is passed by.
But that is cutting the knot: and the antient trans-
Jators not unfrequently omit what is difficult.

The antients rightly remark on the difference be-
tween παρεκάλεσα and rapayyelays, which may very
well be ascribed to the difference of the persons
addressed ; since mildness and authority in Christian

1 TIMOTHY; CHAP. I. 193

rulers are equally necessary, each in their season.
The τισι denotes certain persons who, though un-
named, were well known to Paul,* and of whose
irregularities probably Timothy himseif might have
sent some notification to the Apostle.

The ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν many Commentators explain,
“to teach doctrines different from those which I
taught them.” But I rather agree with others, that
it signifies, ‘‘ to teach no other doctrines than those
taught by myself and the other Apostles.” What
was the exact nature of these doctrines we are left
to conjecture: but from what we know was the
case in other places, we may very well suppose
(with the best Commentators antient and modern)
that they were the doctrines of the Judaizers; and
this further appears from what follows. ‘Thus at 6, 3.
it is explained by μὴ προσέρχεσθαι ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις
I. X. Schleus. refers to Ignat. Ep. ad Polyc. § 3.
and Euseb. H. E. 3, 32.

4. μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις, καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις.
These words are meant to be exegetical of the pre-
ceding. At προσέχειν must be understood νοῦν. It
signifies properly to give the mind to, to attend to;
and 2dly, to credit. These μύθ. relate to the inter-
pretations of the Rabbis. Theophyl. explains: τὰς
παοατηρήσεις καὶ τὰ παρακεχαράγμενα (Cicumen.
παραπεποιήμενα) δόγματα. And Theodoret: τὴν
Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἐρμιηνείαν, τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν καλουμένην δευτέρωσιν
(Mischna.) For γενεαλογίαις, which follows, Bentley
conjectured xevoa. (and other conjecturers other-
wise.) But that is supported by no authority:
neither is it necessary. The καὶ seems to signify
nempe, and is meant (as Rosenm. says) to exemplify
the μυθ. The epithet ἀπέραντος denotes, * that
which has no end; as is the case in certain refined

* This suppression of their names Benson ascribes to the deli-
cacy of the Apostle, And he illustrates it from several other ex-
amples (See his note) ; though probably, as on many other occa-
sions, he carries his speculations too far. He refers to a fine pas-
sage of this kind in Ignat. Ep, ad Smyr. ὃ 5,

VOL, VIII. Oo

194 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

discussions which arise out of such questions (so
Milton: ‘and found no end, in wandering mazes
lost”) ; also, “‘ where no end is kept in view or af-
tained,” consequently unprofitable, useless. Either,
or both, of these significations are here applicable :
and Heinr. thinks there is an hendiadis for γεν. μυθώ-
δεσι καὶ ἅπερ. ; as Polyb. 9, 2. ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τὰ περὶ
τὰς γενεαλογίας καὶ μύθος. But the question is, what
is meant by the yevexa.; on which the modern
Commentators are not agreed. Some say the Cab-
balistical Fables. Others, as Hamm.,° Le Clerc,
Grot., and Benson, the Cons of the Gnostics and
Valentinians. Others, as Schoettg., the proud
glorying of the Jews in their genealogies, of which
we find vestiges in the New Testament and the
earlier Greek writers. See Schoettg., who gives a
sort of history of this genealogical study. ‘The two
former hypotheses are rightly said by Heinr. to re-
gard latter times. The third, he thinks, is incon-
sistent with the hatred and contempt borne by the
Gentiles to the Jews; and the fourth he considers as
little agreeable to the context, since that study
could have nothing to do with religion, nor be any
hindrance to it.” He adopts the exposition of Mi-
chaelis and others, who take it of the doctrines of
the Essenes, on the nature, names, and species of
angels. To me it seems that the interpretation of
Schoettg., which is supported by the authority of
the antients, is the most natural and probable.* As
to the objection of Heinr., it appears ill founded. I
am aware how hopeless it is to attempt to decide a
question of such great uncertainty : but I may be
permitted to suggest, that possibly the Apostle
might have more than one of the above kinds of
ἐς superstitious vanities” in view.

Rosenm. has the following general observations :

* Wets. understands it of Timothy’s own genealogy; and last
ofall, of the study of National Antiquities. Interpretations, as well as
some others, deserving of no serious attention.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 195

**Videmus inde, jam Apostoli zvo fuisse, qui pro
religione inutiles queestiones proponerent. Tales
omnibus temporibus fuerunt, et nunc etiam sunt
doctores; qui utinam perpenderent, quam graviter
peccent, quod summa religionis optime et utilissime
neglecta, auditoribus commenta humana, nihil ad
virtutem et salutem profutura, inculcare solent.”

4. αἵτινες ϑητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκοδομίαν
Θεοῦ τ. ε.π. ‘This shows the reason why they should
not be attended to; namely, since they afforded
matter for ϑητήσεις, curious questions, such as those
in which the Orientals have always delighted, mere
logomachies.. See 6,4. 2 Tim. 2, 14. and Tit. 3, 9.
For ἢ οἰκοδομίαν Θεοῦ, many MSS., the Syriac and
Coptic Versions, and some Fathers and Greek Com-
mentators, read οἰκονομίαν, which is preferred b
Matth., Griesb., Vater, and Valpy ; but (I think) on
insufficient grounds. ‘The words are so very similar
that the authority of MSS., and therefore of Ver-
sions, is of no weight. ‘The question must be de-
cided by the context : and certainly here oixod. yields
the preferable sense, namely, “ that which promotes
such edification as is acceptable toGod.” As to the
other, “that which we render to God as ministers,”
it is frigid and far-fetched. And it is in vain to
plead the critical canon, ‘‘ that the more difficult
reading is to be preferred,” since that is liable to
several exceptions ; as when two words are so mani-
festly similar, that it were almost an even chance
which a scribe would fix on. In ¢hat case, surely,
the more uncommon word is the likeliest to be the
true reading ; and such undoubtedly is οἰκοδομίαν, a
word rarely used in the best writers (hence the
οἰκοδομνὴν of the Cod. Cant. and other altered MSS.) ;
whereas οἰκοδομία is of perpetual occurrence, both in
the New Testament and the Classical writers.

It is plain that μᾶλλον ἢ is for καὶ od; as often in
Thucyd. and the best writers. |

5. τὸ δὲ τέλος---ἀνυποκρίτου. The connection is
ably traced by Crell. thus; ‘“‘Subjungit Apostolus

02

196 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

scopum et obrussam omnium mandatorum, ad quam
exigende sint omnes doctrine, ex qua judicium fieri
posset de unaquaque doctrina, ut que cum illa dis-
crepet infecta et aliena censeatur; q.d. “ Ut autem
scias, o Timothee, veram a suppositia doctrinam
dignoscere, scito Charitatem esse veluti scopum et
cynosuram, quam omnia Dei mandata respiciant, ita
ut quicquid cum ea conveniat, pro genuino sit ag-
noscendum, quicquid autem discrepet, repudiandum
sit, Charitas erga proximum videlicit.”” ‘Theodoret
traces it thus: Δείξας τὴς ἐκείνων μυθολογίας τὸ ἀκερ-
δὲς, προὔθεικε τὴς οἰκείας διδασκαλίας τὸ χρήσιμον.
προσήκει γὰρ σε, ᾧησι, διδάσκειν αὐτοῦς εἰλικρινῶς ἀγα-
may τὸν εὐεργέτην Θεὸν, καὶ πίστιν ἔχειν ἀκραιφνῆ, τῇ
τοῦ συνειδότος μαρτυρίᾳ βεβαιουμένην.

“Γῆς παραγγελίας is taken by Benson for ταύτης
παραγγ.; with reference to the ἵνα παραγγείλῃς at
ver. 3.; but erroneously. It must be taken for τοῦ
παραγγέλματος: and that for τῶν παραγγελμάτων.
It is explained by Crellius: ‘* the system or body of
all the commandments to whose observance we are
bound. See Joh. 6,29. The ἀγάπη must be taken
in its full extent of signification, including love both
to God and man, and, as Crell. truly, but quaintly,
remarks, non tam in affectw quam in effectu. (See
Matt. 22, 37—40.) A virtue (as Heinr. says) the
head and fountain of all the other Christian virtues.
See Mark 12, 30. 1 Cor. 13. And see the note on
Gal. 5, 6.

In the ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας and συνειδήσεως ἀγαθης, it
is not necessary to seek refinements, for Crell. has
too minutely discussed their sense. They are
rather to be taken populariter, as designating a can-
did, sincere, and well meaning spirit. To the Clas-
sical examples adduced I add Theogn. Sentent. 89.
ἢ με φίλει καθαρὸν Gépevos νόον, ἢ pe ἀποειπὼν “Ex Goug’
and Pind. Ol. 4, 27. πρὸς ἡσυχίαν Φιλύπολιν Καθαρᾷ
γνώμᾳ τετραμμένον. By the πιστ. ἀνυποκρίτου, is meant
an undissembled faith, so firm and real as shall pro-
duce the ἀγάπη just mentioned.

«ἰὸν δέν τ δα

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 197

6. ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες, ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιο-
λογίαν, “from which (virtues just mentioned) some
have swerved, turning their minds to vain specula-
tions and fruitless discussions.” The Apostle here
employs two metaphors, each well adapted to denote
deviation from a commandment; namely, 1. a miss-
ing of the mark (σκόπου being understood, which is
expressed in Plut. Symp. 6, 4.; and this metaphor is
used by Plut. 1, 1060. and 2, 414. cited by Wets.
ἀστοχ. τοῦ πρέποντος.); 2. a going out of the road
δου being understood, which is sometimes supplied,
and used metaphorically. See Wetstein’s numer-
ous examples; especially Joseph. Ant. 13, 18. ἐξ-
etpam. τῆς ὁδοῦ δικαίας). By ματαιολογία (which is
adduced by Wets. from Porphyr. de Abst. 4, 16.,
and by Schleus. from Plato 6, 21.) is meant, the vain
speculations and endless and unprofitable discussions
mentioned at ver. 8 & 4. Compare 4, 7. 6, 20.2 Tim.
2,16. and Tit. 39.

7. θελόντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι----διαβεβαιοῦνται. By
the νομοδιδ. are denoted, not (as some suppose) Jewish
teachers, but (as the antients and most moderns are
agreed) those Judaizing Christians, who, from φι-
λαρχία, wished to be teachers of others. And the
term νομοδιδάσκαλος, which properly signified a
Rabbi, or teacher of the Jewish law, had been, to-
gether with many other terms (See Vitringa de Syn.
Vet.), introduced into the Gospel; and it is supposed
by some (as Heinr.) to have been used for the names
by which Christian Rabbis were designated, as ἐπίσ-
Korot, πρεσβύτεροι, and προεστώτες. But, according
to the usual import of θέλειν εἶναι, in St. Paul, 1
should prefer to suppose, with Benson, Rosenm.,
and others, that it here signifies, ““ desiring to be
(thought),” affecting to be. Perhaps, therefore, the
term might mean a Christian teacher, who united
instruction in the law to that of the Gospel. |

The participle μὴ voodyres (by an idiom found in
our own language) is put for the verb and the par-
ticle ὅμως, ** though they know not ;” “ not know-

198 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

ing.” Itisasort of nominativus pendens.. Now of
these persons it is said, that “ they understood not
what, nor the thing concerning which, they so posi-
tively affirm,” for such appears to be the sense of the
words. That διαβεβαιοῦνται must be taken as a
deponent, is plain from the antithetical λέγουσι. And
soit is used in Tit. 3, 8. περὶ τούτων βούλομαι de d10-
βεβαιοῦσθαι" also Plut. 1, 184. (cited by Wets.) περὶ
τῶν A. πραγμάτων διαβεβαιούμενος. Sext. Emp.: περὶ
“οὐδενὸς τών λεχθησομένων διαβεβαιούμεθα" and Polyb.
(cited by Schleus.) : διαβεβ. περὶ τούτων. ‘The sense
above laid down is that approved by the most emi-
nent Commentators antient and modern. (See Theo-
phyl., Whitby, and Benson.) Schleus. 1, 592. ren-
ders thus: ‘‘nec tamen intelligentes, neque qua
loquuntur, neque quid affirment et defendant, aut
quibus argumentis se tueantur.” But this would
require περὶ to be taken in a very uncommon sense. .
8. οἴδαμεν δὲ---κγρῆται. It is well remarked by
Theodoret, that the Apostle says this in order that
he might not seem to depreciate the law; q.d. “1
find no fault with the daw, but with the evil teachers
of the law.” Δὲ, autem. Οἴδαμεν, ‘we well know
and admit.” In what sense the law is said to be
good, and what is meant by the using it lawfully,
Commentators are not agreed, nor do they see their
way very clearly. It is mostly agreed that by καλὸν
is meant, good and useful in its nature, intent, and
meaning. That such was the Mosaic law, ceremo-
nial and moral, none can doubt: but the Apostle
seems to have had chiefly in view the moral part of
it, which was so entirely καλὸν, that it was worthy
of being engrafted into the “ new and better law.”
With respect to the phrase νομιμῶς χρῆσθαι, it is
explained in two ways by the antients; 1. of teach-
ing and fulfilling it in works; 2. of making use of it
to lead us to Christ and the Gospel; which is the
scope of the law. But of neither of these interpre-
tations can I entirely approve; though both are, to
a certain degree, true. As to νομιμώς, it is used for

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 199

paronomasia, and simply signifies aright. The only
use of the law that the Apostle could think or pro-
nounce to be right, was the fulfilling its moral pre-
cepts, and strengthening their observance from the
powerful motives supplied by the Gospel, and thus
making it lead to Christ.
9, 10. «ides τοῦτο---ἀνυποτάκτοις. On the scope of
the Apostle, and the sense of this passage Commen-
tators, both antientsand modern, have been little
agreed. But I need not enter into the numerous
diversities, (for a detail of which the reader is re-
ferred to Walch Diss. on this passage, Goetting.
1776.); since I conceive the only interpretation
that bears the stamp of truth is that of Walch and
Rosenm., which had been partly discovered by the
antients and also by Crellius and others, by which
νόμον is understood, not of the moral law in general
(of offices and duties), but the minatory and penal
part of it, levelled against murders, thefts, adulteries,
ἄς. ** The Judaizing Christians (says Slade), in the
excess of their zeal for the law, had overlooked one
of its great objects—the punishment and prevention
of sin; and it is probable that the Apostle merely
designed to correct this error, reminding them that
the severe enactments of the moral law, for which
they were so strenuous, do not concern (οὐ κεῖται) or
apply to those who have a Christian love of righte-
ousness, are of force only against such as contemn
and violate the law.” So Doddr. concludes that
it chiefly relates to crimes and punishments. And
he adds, that the genius of Christianity is so sublime,
and the character of Christians in general (at that
time) was so good, that there was no need of insist-.
ing on legal sentences denounced against such enor-
mities, in order to keep them in the course of their
duty.” Whether this J/as¢ observation be well.
founded I have some doubt: indeed the whole pas-
sage is too obscure to permit us to be positive as to
its sense.

Ketras is frequently used in this sense by the. best

200 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

Classical writers; of which the philological Com-
mentators adduce examples in superfluous abun-
dance. They also (especially Priceus and Wets.)
adduce many parallel sentiments; though none quite
to the purpose.

The general terms ἀνόμοις and ἀνυποτάκτοις (which
denote disobedient to orders), are followed by the
special ones ἀσέβεσι, &c. in which it is not necessary
to seek refinements. ‘The whsle may be regarded
as expressed (and to be taken) populariter. With
respect to the general term ἁμαρτωλοῖς, some, won-
dering that this general term should be inserted
among special ones, would take it to denote tdola-
ters. An interpretation which Heinr. rightly re-
jects, adding that the Apostle does not heed such
niceties, but occasionally intermixes special terms
with general ones. Here, however, this apology is
unnecessary. It should rather seem that the Apostle
employed ἁμαρτ. after ἀσεβ., since the words were
commonly, and almost proverbially, united, in the
sense exceedingly sinful. So Prov. 11, 31. 6 ἀσεβὴς
καὶ ἁμαρτωλός" where the Hebr. is YW and Non.
Joel 1, 15. ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. See aiso 1 Pet.
4, 18.

The next terms ἀνοσίοις and βεβήλοις are nearly
synonymous. So Hesych. explains ἀνοσία by βέβηλα,
ἄδικα. ἄνομα. ᾿Ανόσιος denotes one who despises and
transgresses all laws, divine and human. βέβηλος
denotes properly an irreligious person, one who is
not a worshipper or participator in any religious
worship. So Hesych.: βέβηλος, ἀνίερος, ἀμίαντος.
Such persons were so. called, as being excluded from
the sacred fanes. ‘Thus the term may here have the -
sense heathenish, in our popular acceptation.

᾿Ανδροφόνοις. E. V. man-slayers. Doddr., assas-
sins. But neither words convey the right idea. It
may be better rendered murderers (in general), in-
cluding both open and secret violence, and also that
less criminal, because not deliberate, mode of taking
another’s life, called manslaughter, or homicide.

*y

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 201

Πόρνοις is commonly rendered whoremongers or
fornicators. But it may also denote adulterers.
Some recent Commentators explain it male prosti-
tutes; comparing I Cor. 5, 9—11. 6,9. Hebr. 12,
16.13, 4. Perhaps the Apostle might have all these
senses in view; though the list is not complete;
since the Apostle adds καὶ ef τι ἕτερον, &c.

By ἀνδραποδισταῖς the best Commentators are
agreed is meant, those who kidnapped and sold into
slavery free persons. Now this was regarded by
the law as felony of the deepest dye, and was always
punished with death. And as all the crimes here
mentioned are of the most heinous kind, and as
robbery does not elsewhere occur in the list, so ἀν-
dporod. seems as put for robbery of the worst sort.
Let, then, the slave-traders (Christians, alas!) of
our times tremble! for αὐ who, in any way, parti-
cipate in that abominable traffic are ἀνδαρποδισται ;
since they thereby uphold a system which perpe-
tually engenders man-stealing. The terms ψεύσται
and ἐπίορκοι require no explanation. ever. denotes
deceit, perfidy of the basest sort. Compare ἀσυνθετοὶ,
ἀσπόνδοι, at Rom. 1, 81. ’Emsogk. denotes perjury.
Against all the foregoing crimes there had been
severe penalties denounced in the Mosaic law; and
the Commentators especially give references to those
parts of the Pentateuch supposed to be here alluded
to. But that the Apostle had also in view the still
more terrible denunciations against these sins in the
Gospel, is plain from the words following, καὶ εἴ ri—
κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, &c. The metaphor in ὑγιαινούση
διδασκαλίᾳ was frequent in the best writers to denote
true, right, &c. So Plut. 2, 20. (cited by Wets.)
αὕται γὰρ εἰσιν ὑγιαίνουσαι περὶ θεῶν δόξαι καὶ ἀληθεῖς.
and Philo p. 32, 29. τοὺς ὑγιαίνοντας λόγους. Wets. |
has here also cited two similar lists of crimes; as
Pollux 6, 151. (in which are the ἀνδροποδίσται and the
πόρνοι, πατραλῳαι, and μητραλώαι.) and Philostr. 4, 7.
μοιχοὶ καὶ ἀνδραποδισταὶ, πόρνοι----καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔθνη.
The learned Commentator might have added Phi-

ad

202 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, I.

lostr. Epist. Apoll. 66. κλεπτὴς τε καὶ ληστὴς, καὶ
ἀνδαποδιστὴς, καὶ εἴτις ἄδικος ἢ ἱερόσυλος.

11. κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον της δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ, ὃ
ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ. The κατὰ signifies in conformity to,
agreeably to, i.e. with reference to the sound doc-
trine. Τῆς δόξης. Genitive substantive for an
Adjective. With respect to the epithet μακάριος,
applied to the Deity here, and at 6, 15., it is
observed by Heinr. that no Hebrew word (not even
‘J12) quite corresponds to it. And he thinks it is
derived from the Homeric μακαρίοι Θεοὶ αἰεὶ ἔοντες.
But it should seem very improbable that the Apostle
ever read Homer; nor is it necessary to have
recourse to such a supposition. We may easily
imagine, that the term, in this use, was not unfre-
quent in the mouths of the educated classes. Thus
Philo 147. (cited: by Loesn.), among other predicates
of God, names him μόνον μακάριον.

On the idiom in ὃ ἐπιστ. ἐγὼ, see the note on
Rom. 3, 12.

12. καὶ χάριν----εἰς διακονίαν. Te ἐνδυναμώσαντί pe
X.’L., “ to Christ Jesus that strengthened me (to the
effectual preaching of this Gospel).” ‘The sense of
these words is unwarrantably lowered by Rosenm.
and Koppe thus: “ instruxit me, ut scirem quid do-
cerem, et libenter et constanter docerem.” ‘They
will not allow that there can be any reference to
miraculous power. Though this is supported by the
antients, and many eminent moderns, as Benson and
Michaelis, the former of whom refers to Acts 1, 8.,
where δύναμις is used, on the Holy Spirit being
promised to the Apostles of the circumcision.
ςς Thereby (says he) was signified all that illumina-
tion and miraculous power which enabled them to
understand the Gospel, and to spread it with suc-
cess. All this St. Paul received, not from man,
neither by men, but immediately from our Lord
Jesus. Christ. Acts 9, 17., Rom. 15, 19., 2 Cor. 3, 5:
and 6., Gal, 1, 1., 11 and 12.” Πιστόν. In the same
sense the word occurs in Hebr. 2, 17. Heinr.

"»

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 203

remarks that θέμιενος is for ws τιθέσθαι pe. Rosenm.
takes it for ὅτι ἔθετο we. Διακονίαν is put for τὴν διακο-
νίαν, scil. τῆς καινῆς διαθηκῆς, 2 Cor. 3,6. It is here
observed by Rosenm.: ““ Digressio hec av. 12. ad
17., non coheret cum officiis que Paulus Timotheo
in superioribus preescribit; sed quia prestantiee
religionis christianee mentionem fecerat, obiter com-
memorat vocationem suam, et felicem se preedicat,
quod dignus esset habitus, cui Christus tantum
munus doctoris evangelici concrederet, quod non
amplius esset Judzus, sed Christi Apostolus.

13. τὸν πρότερον---ὁβριστήν. Badodypov, an evil
speaker, detracter. A term used generally of
revilers of men, but κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, of those who insult
the Deity. See Acts 26, 11., and the note. I would
subaud τῆς καινῆς διαθηκῆς, scil. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, from
the preceding verse. On διώκτην, see Gal. 1, 18.
Ὑβριστὴν (on which see Heinr.) is a stronger term,
and seems to denote the persecuting spirit carried
into effect in the personal violence used by Saul to
apprehend and bring Christians to punishment. See
Acts 8, 3 & 11., 9, 2.

13. ἀλλ᾽ ἐλεήθην, ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ.
There is some harshness in the ἀπιστίᾳ added at the
end of the sentence, without which all would have
been clear. Some, as Rosenm., take it for ἐν χρόνῳ
τῆς ἀπιστίας. But this is too arbitrary. Heinr.
thinks the ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ is exegetical of the ἀγνοών ; and
he renders: “‘ per imprudentiam, quippe qui, ἄπισ-
tos wy, adeoque de veritate quondam edoctus, in
honorem Jove, vereeque, ut errabam, Mosaice rel.
tam infesto odio persequabar perfidos et quasi perfu-
gas Christianos.” Benson paraphrases: “as I then
acted out of ignorance ; and opposed Christianity,
because I did not believe, nor suspect, it to be true.*

* He remarks that “ sincerity is used in two senses; 1., For a
man’s carefully inquiring into the nature and extent of his duty,
and habitually acting accordingly. 2., For a man’s acting according
to his present sentiments ; though he has not formerly inquired
into the nature and extent of his duty, with the care which he
might, and ought to have used. St. Paul, before his conversion to

a

204 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

It should seem that the obscurity arose from the
Apostle’s here blending (as not unfrequently) two
clauses into one; q.d. “ I obtained mercy because
my unbelief was sincere, though resting on false
grounds ; and, therefore, what I did was under igno-
rance of the true nature of my conduct.”

14. ὑπερεπλεόνασε----ηἡσοῦ. The sense of these
words is somewhat obscure, from brevity; but it
seems to be this: ‘* The mercy and favour of God
was so abundant to me, as not only to pardon my
unbelief and blasphemy, but to bring me to the
Christian faith; and that with the most affecting
condescension.’”? Such, I conceive, is the full and
real sense, which has been imperfectly conceived
and expressed by Commentators.

15. ‘This verse is, in some respects, parenthetical.
Πιστὸς ὃ λόγος, καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. ‘These
words are rendered by Wets. thus: “ Certissima res
est, et digna quam omni studio, et cupidé omnes am-
plectantur probentque.” ‘The literal sense is as
follows: “assuredly true and worthy of entire
acceptance is the position, that, &c. So Thucyd. 3,
63, 1., ἀξιώτερος πάσης ϑημίας. Apollon. Epist. 12.,
τούς ἀξίους ἀποδοχῆς. Diog. Laert. 5, 64., ἀνὴρ γέγονε
πολλῆς τῆς ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος. With the πιστὸς λόγος
Koppe compares the Hebr. 1270 nox. The same
expression occurs in 3, 1., 2 Tim. 2, 11., and Tit. 3,
8. There is here (as I have before indicated) a
slight hyperbaton. <Adyos, assumption, position, doc-
trine; as Matt. 9, 13., Mark 2, 17., and Luke 6, 32.
The above sense of ἀποδοχη is established and illus-

Christianity, was not sincere, in the former sense. For if he had
first carefully inquired into the nature and evidence of Christianity,
a man of his fairness of mind would not have persecuted the
Christians, but have readily become one himself. But, in the latter
sense of the word, he was sincere, i. e. he honestly acted according to
his present sentiments, And, being ignorant of the nature and evi-
dence of Christianity, and a real unbeliever, who took it for granted
that Christianity was false, he thought it his duty to oppose it, and
to persecute those who professed it.”

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 205

trated by the Philological Commentators with exam-
ples in superfluous abundance.

15. σῶσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς. Benson explains “ to
reform sinners ;” and he adduces several examples.
But this seems to be a groundless refinement. Even
Koppe (though sufficiently prone to innovation)
acknowledges that it is one of those general phrases
denoting all the merits of Christ in effecting the sal-
vation of men. Now the end of Christ’s coming was
not only to put men into the way of salvation in this
world, but to contribute every necessary aid, con-
sistent with the free will of moral agents, towards
their obtaining the end, even salvation and eternal
happiness in another. ‘Apaprwaods, “(all) sinners as
well as myself ;” and indeed all men, since all are
sinners. It is observed, by Theophyl., that this is
levelled against the Judaizers, to show them that
without faith it is impossible to be saved.

Ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. At this strong expression
some modern Commentators stumble; and many,
both antient and modern, enter into needless doc-
trinal subtilties. The attempt to remove the
seeming harshness by altering the sense (as does
Benson) into, ““ Iam the first who from a blasphemer
and persecutor have become a Christian,’ can be
approved by no one who has any accurate perception
of the force of Greek phraseology. And it is in vain
to say that the words of the next verse require it;
since there the sense is engrafted upon this; and the
Apostle delights in variety. The exposition of the
antients has been, with reason, retained by all the
most eminent modern Commentators: and it is not
necessary to rigorously press on the sense, which
may be interpreted conformably with a similar
expression of exemplary modesty at 1 Cor. 15, 9.,
where see the note. I have sometimes thought rgw-
ros might mean one of the chief; and such, I find,
is the opinion of Mr. Valpy. The word has
frequently that sense. So especially Eph. 6, 2., ἐν-

206 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

τολὴ πρώτη, “a primary commandment.” where see
note.

16. ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο---αἰώνιον. Koppe well points
out the resumptive force in ἀλλὰ ἠλ., which refers to
the dan ἠλεήθην at ver. 18. ; 4. d. ‘* For this reason, I
say, 1 was spared.” “Iva ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται----
μακροθυμίαν. The πρώτῳ has reference to the πρῶτος
of the former verse, but with a variation of sense ;

. d. “1 was the first of sinners, and therefore in me
Jirst (of all who had so sinned) did Christ shew
mercy.” Others take rgwrw for πρότερον ; and most
moderns think that it has the very same signification
as πρῶτος at ver. 15. But the sense above laid down
seems the more natural, and agreeable to the style of
the Apostle, who delights in variety. He might,
however, in a certain sense, be said to be such. See
Benson.

16. τὴν πᾶσαν μακροθυμίαν, abundant. A significa-
tion common both in the Scriptural and Classical
writers. Πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν---- αἰώνιον, * That I should
be an example to all that should come after, that
they may believe in him, unto everlasting salvation.”
Ὑποτύπωσις properly signifies a slight delineation of
any thing in outline, literally a chalking out any thing
faintly (ὑπὸ) ; and as such sketches or models were
used by painters and architects, so the term came to
mean an exemplar in general. Hence it is explained
by the antients ὑπόδειγμα, σημεῖον. By others, raga-
Kajow. But this latter, though not inapplicable,
cannot be supposed to be the sense had in view by
the Apostle. ‘The πιστεύειν depends upon ὥστε; and
the εἰς signifies end, i. 6. “in order to the attainment
of.” See 1 Pet. 1, 9., More might be said; but it
is scarcely necessary. ‘The reader may consult
Benson, &c.

17. τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων ἀφθάρτῳ. ‘The
Apostle here breaks out into δὴ ejaculation of
ardent gratitude for the mercy of Gods; and con-
cludes the passage (as often) with a Doxology,

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 207

one of the grandest and most energetic to be found
in all his Epistles.

Βασιλεὺς is frequently applied to God as being
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Βασιλ. τῶν
αἰώνων is explained, by the best Commentators, the
King who hath ruled throughout all ages, and of
whose dominion there will be no end. Koppe com-
pares, from the Jewish writers 2 OMT Jn
cory. Other interpretations have been brought
forward by Grot. and Hamm., but too far-fetched.

᾿Αφθάρτῳ, immortal. So in 6, 16. God is said to
be thus distinguished from earthly Kings and ficti-
tious Deities; ’Aoparw, unseen (except by his works).
So 6, 16. “ dwelling in a light unapproachable by
man.” See also Rom. 1,20. This has been more
than once imitated by Milton. The epithet σοφῷ,
conjoined also with μόνω, is applied to God by many
writers. Yet some Critics maintain that it is suppo-
sititious, and introduced from Rom. 16, 27. But the
MSS. in which this omission is found are only about
six in number, and those altered ones. And it may be
easily accounted for, from the wish of the librarii to
remove what seemed a defect in style ; though that
arose from misapprehension of the true construction
of the sense, which has (I think) been rightly laid
down by Bp. Middleton thus: ‘to the eternal King,
the immortal, invisible, and only wise God.” And
so some of the antients. On the other hand, it is
not so easy to account for its introduction, and that
into nearly all the MSS. Besides, if the construc-
tion be what Bp. Middleton has pointed out, the
σοφῷ is almost indispensable.

Of these different epithets see the copious Clas-
sical examples of Wets.

18. ταύτην τὴν παραγγέελίαν--- στρατείαν. Almost
all Commentators are agreed that the Apostle is here
resuming what he had been saying at ver. 3—7.,
between which and the present verse there is an
interval somewhat protracted, but not so as to in-
duce me to suppose (as some do) that by τὴν ragay-

208 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

γελίαν the Apostle means the injunction he just after
subjoins. On παραγγελία see Luke 12, 48. and the
note. Rosenm. remarks on the transposition of iva,
and lays down the following construction : ἵνα orga-
τεύη THY καλὴν στρατείαν κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σε
προφητείας ; the words ἐν αὐταῖς being redundant.
See ἃ similar transposition at 2 Cor. 2, 4. and Col.
4, 17. The sense is: “ This I especially enjoin
upon you, that conformably to the preceding predis-
position concerning you, ye would diligently discharge
your duty and office.” At the words κατὰ τὰς προα-
γούσας ἐπὶ σε ποοφητείας modern Commentators have
much stumbled. Hence the variety of interpreta-
tions, the most specious of which is that of those
(as Noesselt and Schleus.) who take προῷ. for rapay-
γελία, διδασκαλία, and παρόκλησις, 1.e. “ according
to my previous exhortations.” But no example of
such a sense of προφητεία has ever been produced ;
and thus, too, the ἐπὶ ce will have an uncommon
sense, and mpoay. be very harsh. The interpretation,
indeed, has no sembiance of truth. As little can I
approve of that of Heinr., who takes the προῷ. of the
good hope which all had conceived of ‘Timothy (see
Acts 16, 2.), “ augurantes eum optimum fore reli-
gionis doctorem et defensorem.” A sense unautho-
rized by the usus loquendi: and the phrase savours
rather of the Classical modes of thought than those
of the Apostle. As to other intérpretations, I must
omit them. There seems no reason to desert the
antient and generally received one, by which the
προαγούσας ἐπὶ σε προφητείας is taken to signify the
prophecies respecting Timothy, which preceded his
investiture with the office of Evangelist ; the zo.
being understood of declarations proceeding from
persons who possessed the Divine χάρισμα called the
προφητεία. See Acts 13, 2. 20,28. And so Chrys.
and Theophyl. No well founded objection has ever
been made to this interpretation, which surely in-
volves no more difficulty than the supposing the
existence of the προφητεία so often mentioned in St.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 209

Paul’s Epistles, and which, whoever would doubt,
may as well close the Bible, and shut his eyes at
once upon all truth.

The expression ἵνα στρατεύη τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν
as applied to the vigilant and zealous exercise of his
duties, is one of those military metaphors so fre-
quent in the Apostle’s writings. See Tim. 2, 3. and
Eph. 6, 10. Heinrichs compares a similar use of
the Heb. Na¥ at Is. 40, 20. and Job 7, 1.* The
Hellenism in orpar. στρ. is of perpetual occurrence.
See Wetstein’s examples.

19. ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ““ having and
holding,” &c.; for κατεχ., as often. Πίστιν καὶ
ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν Rosenm. takes for πίστιν ἐν καθαρᾷ
συνειδήσει, by a sort of hendiadis. But the terms
are better kept separate; as supra ver. 5. ἐκ συνειδή-
σεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως & ‘These (as Hein. ob-
serves) are the principal virtues of the Christian
soldier. ‘Theophyl. well paraphrases thus: ἀλλὰ δεῖ
σε ἔχειν πίστιν, ὥστε τὸν λόγον ὀρθοτομεῖν, καὶ ἀγαθὴν
συνείδησιν, τουτέστι, πολιτείαν ἀκατάγνωστον κεκτῆσθαι.
Ἔκ γὰρ ταύτης ἡ ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις, ἵνα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
δύνασαι προΐστασθαι. So Grot.: ““ Sicut ignis pabulo
indiget, ita fides bonis operibus ; alioqui facile ex-
stinguitur. Nam qui malé agere volunt, omnia
querunt ut 5101 persuadeant ea que de premiis ac
peenis zeternis dicuntur non esse vera, aut certé non
tali Lege Deum agere cum hominibus.”

19. ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι, “which (good conscience)
some having rejected and neglected,” &c.+ Περὶ

* Nor was this confined to the Scriptural writers ; for, as Wets.
observes, omne studium cujuscunque privati aut publici muneris
egregié militia dictum; as Seneca Ep. 96. Vivere—militare est.
Max. Tyr. 19, 4. στρατηγὸν μὲν τὸν θεὸν, στρᾳτείαν δὲ τὴν Φωὴν,
ὁπλίτην δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Apulej. Met. 11. Da nomen huic sanctz
militie, cuyus olim sacramento etiam letaberis, teque jam nunc ob-
sequio religionis nustre dedica, et ministerii jugum subi volunta-
rium.

+ Benson fancies here a reproof of the Judaizing Christians, who
neither retained the pure Christian faith, without adding Jewish
mixtures, nor a good conscience: for they suppressed what they

VOL. VIII, Ῥ

210 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1.

τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν. The terms ναυαγεῖν naufra-
gium facere alicujus are used by the best Classical
writers. See the philclogical Commentators. But.
the Latin phrase is confined to ruin of property, or
fortune. ‘The other is sometimes used (as here) of
a loss of truth, or rectitude by, (as it were,) splitting
on the rocks of error or vice. So (of Wets. exam-
ples) Cebes : ναυαγοῦςσιν ἐν τώ βίῳ καὶ πλανῶνται.
Galen : ἐν οἷς γὰρ ἐναυάγησαν οἱ πρόσθεν i ἰατροί. Philo
1, 6078. ναυαγήσαντες 4 περὶ γλώτταν ἄθυρον, 7 περὶ
γάστερο, ἄπληστον.

20. ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος. From the
mode in which those persons are mentioned, it is
plain that there were more, and that these are speci-
fied as being the most culpable. ‘The names occur
at 2'Tim. a. 17. 2Tim. 4,14. Acts 19, 88. ; though
it has been thought doubtful whether they were the
same persons. Hymenzeus denied the resurrection
of the dead, understanding the resurrection as merely
a spir itual one, a new birth unto righteousness.

20. ous παρέδωκα TO Σατανᾷ. See the note on 1
Cor. 5, 5. Ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν. It is
strange that Heinr., who discusses this passage with
his iene learning ae acuteness, should regar d this
as put for "νον ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ τοῦ
βλασφημεῖν. Or they may, he thinks, be explained
‘‘ ex affecto irati, qui sepissime minatur plura quam
efficere aut potest aut in animo habet.” And he
remarks on the immitia verba of St. Paul. But
surely nothing more irreverent to the Apostle can
be imagined ! As to the reasons assigned by Heinr.
for deviating from the common opinion, they are
too weak to deserve a moment’s attention. Good
sense and good taste (if nothing more) might have
taught him not to press or refine on the sense of such
words, which Pricaus long ago showed are to be
reckoned among proverbial expressions. And he

knew to be truth, and, to please the Jews, broached what was erro-
neous and destiuctive of the Gospel,”

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 11. QT

adduces many examples from various authors. In all
such passages, it may be observed, the true end of all
punishment is supposed to be aimed at, namely, the
prevention of crime. Hence we may see how false
is the interpretation of Beza, “ ne impuné ferant suas
blasphemias.”

The force of βλασῷ. may easily be conceived by
considering that those who propounded such here-
5165 as did Hymeneeus, could scarcely avoid speaking
evil of the truth; and, as Grot. observes, those who
abandon any doctrine, and promulgate an opposite
one, usually seek to justify their conduct by speaking
evil of the one they have forsaken.

Whether Hymenzus and Alexander were thus
reclaimed, we are not informed. Most probably
not. See Benson. How muchithis uncompromis-
ing severity to apostates strengthens our confidence
in the divine mission of the Apostles, is justly re-
marked by Reynolds ap. Doddr.

CHAP. 11.

It is truly observed by Benson, that c. 1. is a sort
of preface to the whole Epistle; and at c. 2. the
Apostle enters upon particulars, and proceeds to give
Timothy directions for the regulation of the Church,
and especially as regards its external state. Hence
he first touches upon the most important of the ex-
ternal observances, public prayer.

Verse 1. πρώτον πάντων is by some interpreted
imprimis. But the context requires primum om-
nium, with the Vulg. And so Luke 12, 1. 2 Pet.
1,20. Like principio, it often has no apodosis.

The terms προσευχαὶ, ἐντεύξεις, and εὐχαριστίαι
have properly this difference, that by the first is
meant deprecations of evil ; by the second, supplica-
tions for good ; by the third, intercession for others ;
by the fourth, grateful acknowledgments to the Di-

P 2

212 -1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II

vine goodness :* but I agree with the best Commen-
fators; that we need not here resort to critical dis-
tinctions (which even the antients disapproved).
Thus Theophyl., from Chrys., says: τινες δὲ διαφορὰν
περιειργάσαντο), but understand the terms as de-
noting all kinds of prayers to be offered up for the
good of men, and which may be variously classed.

By πάντων are meant both Christians, and non-
Christians. Some add, both friends and enemies.
But that seems little consistent with public prayer.
This was, I think with Benson, levelled against the
bigotry of the Jews and Gentiles. How different
such a course was from the spirit and practice of
the Jews, and how necessary it was to show the
Gentiles the difference of Christians in this respect,
is very obvious. They might, by praying for, rather
than by evincing contempt and hatred for the Hea-
thens, and especially by prayers for the prosperity of
kings and governors, show that, as loyal, peaceable,
and well-affected subjects, they deserved to be pro-
tected rather than persecuted.

2. ὑπὲρ βασιλέων---ὄντων. This may be understood
not only of the Roman Emperors, to whom the for-
merly odious name βασιλεῖς began to be freely ap-
plied, but to all those who exercised any sovereign
authority under them, whether Tetrarchs, or others.
The τών ἐν ὑπερόχη ὄντων are supposed to be the same
with the of ἐν τέλει, &c. of the Classical writers, all
those bearing the high offices of state and adminis-
tration of provinces, whether pro-consuls, or mi-
nisters of state, &c. So Tertullian in his Apolog. :
““ Oramus etiam pro Imperatoribus, per ministros
eorum, et Potestatibus.” The Jews, indeed, as
Ottius here shows from Joseph. B. J. 2, 17, 2. and

* Wets. thinks that the δέησις, προσευχὴ; and ἐντεύξις have this
difference, that the first denotes oratio extemporanea et brevis; the
second, meditatio majestatis divine ejusque adoratio ; the third, pera
πλείονος παῤῥησίας (as Origen de Orat. 44, defines), vel de certd
guadam re Deum adire.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 213

Ant. 12, 11. “ did profess to pray twice a day for
the emperors: and the Rabbis directed the people
to pray pro paée regni. But the present practice of
the Jews was so little consistent with their profes-
sions, that it was the more necessary for the Chris-
tians to show how different they themselves were in
both respects. ‘This duty (so agreeable to the pre-
cepts of Christ, Matt. 22, 21., and to the spirit of the
Gospel) was (we find from the early Ecclesiastical
writers here cited by the Commentators) universally
performed by the primitive Christians.

The words ive διάγωμεν Heinr. says, are very plain.
Yet he seems to misunderstand their general scope:
for the sense (I apprehend) is nof, “let us do this that
we may live at peace, and not suffer persecution,”
but I think with Rosenm., that these prayers (which
included all the lesser observances of loyal subjects, )
are directed to be offered up for the benefit of that
quietness and deliverance from the harassings of bar-
barians and Robbers, than which no greater blessing
can be received by subjects from rulers. Here
Wets., and especially Priczeus, adduce Classical ex-
amples in superfluous abundance; but very few in-
deed are useful or apposite.*

The σεμνότ. denotes a decorous and worthy de-
meanour: a signification found in the Classical
writers. So Herodian 2, 1, 10. (cited by Wets.) διὰ
σεμνότητα αἰδουμιένος, “ respected for his worth.”
Ablian. V. H. 2, 13. σεμνότης βίου.

* I could contribute no slight symbola; but shall content
myself with three or four passages which did not occur to those
Commentators, and are really apposite. Thucyd. 4, 62. τὴν δὲ ὑπὸ
πάντων ὁμολογουμένην ἄριστον εἶναι εἰρήνην πῶς ov χρὴ Kal ἐν
ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ποίησασθαι ; ἢ δοκεῖτε; εἴ τῷ τι ἔστιν ἀγαθὸν ἢ εἴ τῷ τὰ
ἐναντία, οὐχ ἡσυχία μᾶλλον ἢ πόλεμος τὸ μὲν παύσαι ἂν ἑκατέρῳ,
τὸ δὲ συνδιασώσαι, καὶ τὰς τιμὰς καὶ λαμπρότητας ἀκινδυνοτέρας
ἔχειν τὴν εἰρήνην, ἄλλα τε ὄσα ἐν μήκει λόγων ἂν τις διέλθοι,
ὥσπερ περὶ τοῦ πολεμεῖν. Pind. Pyth. 7. init. (which Thucyd. seems
to have had in view), φίλοφρον ᾿Ασυχία, Aucas*Q μεγιστόπολι θύ-
γατερ. Cicero: Nihil tam populare quam concordiam quam otium
reperiemus. Theophy]. Sim. 77 D. οὐδὲν yap τῆς εἰρήνης καθέστηκε
τιμαλφέστερον τοῖς ye νοῦν ἔχουσι.

214 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1].

8,4. τοῦτο yap καλὸν---Θεοῦ, “ For this (i. 6. pray-
ing for all men, especially rulers,) is good,” &c. The
καλὸν seems to regard men. (So Theophyl. τὸ guces
Kaavy),* and is rendered by Rosenm. pulcrum, ho-
nestum, guod decet. ᾿Αποδεκτὸν signifies properly
what is worthy of being accepted or approved: but
it here denotes what is approved. It is explained by
Hesych. ἐπαινετόν. We may compare Hebr. 13, 21.
ἐνωπίον αὐτοῦ ἐυάρεστον. By πάντας is meant all na-
tions and all individuals, q. d. ‘* God desires the sal-
vation of all, and therefore for all we are bound to
pray.” Thus the term σωτὴρ ἡμών, often elsewhere
applied to God (see the note on 1, 1.) has here a pe-
culiar propriety. On σωθῆναι see the note supra 1,
15. The καὶ before εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν is well rendered by
Benson and in order thereto. 1 cannot agree with
Doddr. that this clause proves the preceding one
must be taken with limitation.

4. εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας signifies, “to perfectly
know, and consequently embrace, the truth as it is
in Jesus, the true religion, as revealed by Jesus
Christ and his Legates.” ‘This sense of ἀληθεία and
Nias is common in Scripture. ‘That God wishes the
salvation of all men, we find from various parts of the
New Testament. See Joh. 3, 17. 2 Pet. 3, 9. &c.
And this is ¢mplied in innumerable passages. I can-
not however here enter into the subject, which, in-
deed, falls rather within the province of the Theolo-
gian than the Commentator. But I must confess
that the comprehension of the question seems to far
exceed all human power.f That God hath made
sufficient provision for the salvation of all men, and
that none will perish but by their own fault, we may
be content to believe and know; though the mode,
&c. must be left in the bosom of our Father and our

God.

* Ina similar way δίκαιον is used at Eph. 6, 1. where Theophyl.
explains, φύσει δίκαιον.

+ Mackn. indeed avoids the difficulty; but it is by ascribing an
unwarrantable sense to the words.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, II. Q15

5, 6. Heinr. here remarks: ‘* Amplificatur hic
locus, cur pro omnibus sint noncupanda νοΐ." And
so Benson. This may be true; but it seems to me
that the Apostle also intended to further explain
what was only darkly hinted at in the καὶ eis ἐπίγνω-
ow: and thus the sense will be: “ not merely have
we all, of whatever nation, the same God as our
Creator, and the same Christ as our Redeemer, but
this: There is one God and Mediator common to
all; and this mediation and atonement of Jesus
Christ constitutes the only means by which we can
be brought to the truth, and thereby attain salva-
tion.” The words ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάν-
των, which are so closely connected with μεσίτης
(and to similar adjuncts at Hebr. 9, 15. 8, 6. 12, 24.)
plainly prove that the Socinian notion of Mediator (as
only denoting “one who makes known the mind of
two parties to each other, and makes an agreement
or covenant between them,”) is miserably imperfect :
for though that is one part of a Mediatorial office,
yet the true notion of Christ's mediation, as given
us in the New Testament, includes also reconcilia-
tion and atonement, and giving himself a ransom to
God for us; as the words following at the present
passage clearly prove. See the note of Whitby, who
shows by many extracts from Philo, that such too
was the Jewish notion of Mediator.* It is rightly
observed by Mackn., that the Apostle means to
hint, that Christ’s mediation is founded on the atone-
ment which he made for our sins, in his human na-
ture. For, as Doddr. observes, the words ἄνθρωπος

. * He thus concludes his able annotation : “ So that here it is
made the oflice of Mediator to procure peace to the creature from
God, to make atonement to God, and to be an advocate to obtain the
pardon of sins ; and if Christ our Mediator and Advocate with the
Father, was, by virtue of his office, to do this, surely it must be part
of his office to appease and reconcile God to us.” This view of the
subject is fully supported by the antient Fathers and Commentators,
See especially Chrysost., and, of the moderns, Bps. Pearson and
Bull, and that most excellent and seasonable Treatise of Abp, Magee
on the Atonement, See also the note on Rom. 5, 8. Ἢ

216 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Il.

I. X. plainly show that it is in his human nature we
are to consider him as discharging it.” And this
perhaps is the best account to be given of the intro-
duction of ἄνθρωπος. Though it might also be meant
(as some say) to shew the humanity as well as Deity
of Christ.*

That learned Socinians should have caught up this
passage (like so many others) to establish a system
which requires all means, even the most desperate,
to give it any colour, is not surprising : and that the
unlearned and unstable among them should receive
the gloss they offer is natural ; and yet, that any per-
sons of learning, and, to use the words of the Apostle,
of διὰ τὴν ἔξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἔχουσι πρὸς
διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ should be induced to
take up with it is truly amazing. To omit many
other confirmations of the above view of the subject
from writers whom they are accustomed toreverence,
I would instance the following: Mecirys, ὃ εἰρηνόποιος
(ut Suidas explicat) qui amicitiam, pacem, et con-
cordiam restituit, et dissidentes reconciliat, gutes
FVernehmen wiederherstellt. Hoc mediatoris munere
functus est Christus, dum mortem toleravit ad ve-
niam peccatorum, v. 6. et declaravit, Deum velle
hominibus condonare propter mortem a se tolera-
tam ; per doctrinam suam effecit, ut homines favo-
rem Dei optarent, et quererent; quod beneficium
est generale, et totius humani generis donum. Rom.
5,10. 2 Cor. 5, 19. "AvOpwrev hic intellige σχήματι
εὑρηθέντα ws ἄνθρωπον, Phil. 2,8. (Rosenm.).

6. ὁ δοὺς ἐαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. Compare
Matt.20, 28. This shows the mode in which the me-
diation was effected. ᾿Αντίλυτρον, which seems to be
a stronger term than λύτρον, though nearly of the
same sense (and indeed Schleus. thinks it synony-

ὶ

* So Bp. Middleton ap. Slade: ““" Unless he had been deemed
more than man, there would have been no occasion for such an ex-
pression. We never find the word man so applied to any other per-
son. There is no such phrase as ἄνθρωπος Μωσῆς, or ἄνθρωπος
"lwarrns.”

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 217

mous), occurs in a Greek Translator of Ps. 48, 8.,
and also in Hesych.: ἀντίλυτρον: ἀντίδοτον. It
might possibly be in some copies of the Sept. in St.
Paul’s age. On the full force of the term in ques-
tion, and of the whole passage, see the masterly note
of Whitby.

The words following τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις are,
from their brevity, somewhat obscure, and have been
differently interpreted. Rosenm. renders: ‘ hac
est doctrina temporibus suis reservata.” By μαρτύ-
ριον he understands that brief sum of it now pro-
pounded by the Apostle. And, indeed, μαρτύριον
does signify doctrine; but that signification seems
here little apposite; and the whole interpretation
yields a very frigid sense. That of Heinr., though
ingenious, is too contort to deserve attention. For
my own part, I see no interpretation so little liable
to objection as the commonly received one, which is
well expressed by Benson (ap. Slade) thus: “ who
gave himself as a ransom for many, as the great wit-
ness (of the truth of God’s word,) appearing in the
proper season (1 Tim. 6, 15. Tit. 1, 3.) appointed by
God, and signified in the antient Prophets, for his
appearing in the flesh, and undergoing such a scene
of humiliation and sufferings. Gal. 4, 4. Eph. 1,
10. And this is supported by the authority of the
Greek Commentators. Thus Theoph. (from Chrys.)
takes μαρτύριον for διὰ τοῦ μαρτυρίου. Or (he adds)
ἐφερμηνεύων τουτο, φησὶ νῦν, ὅτι ἀντίλυτρον τὸ μαρτύριον
λέγῳ, τουτέστι, τὸ πάθος" ἦλθε γὰρ μαρτυρήσων τῇ ἀλη-
θείᾳ μέχρι θανάτου. He explains καιροῖς ἰδίοις by Kou-
pois τοῖς προσήκουσιν" Theodoret and Cicumen. by
ἐπιτηδείοις. See Benson. i

7. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, “ to the
preaching and declaring of which I am appointed.”
Compare 2 Tim. 1,11. The parenthetical declara-
tion ἀληθείαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι may be
compared with Rom. 9, 1. where see the note. Ben-
son’s version, “as I am a Christian, I speak the

218 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ii.

truth, and lie not !” is undignified, and indeed not so
accurate as the common one. ‘The sense. seems to
be: ‘I speak the truth before Christ, ἐνώπιον X., as
in the presence of Christ.” On the κῆρυξ and ἀπόσ-
τολος, the long note of Benson may be consulted
(though here, as very often, he is too fanciful), and
also that of Doddr. ᾿Εν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. These
words are by some, as Camer., Beza, Grot., Priceeus,
and most recent Commentators, applied to the Apos-
tle, and taken for πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθὴς, “ teaching sound
doctrine, without any admixture of false or adulte-
rate ones.” By the antients and many moderns they
are referred to the Gentiles, i. e. ‘* instructing them
in faith and truth ;” which Benson thinks an hendi-
adis for the true faith. But see Theophyl.

8. βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ
τόπῳ. ‘The οὖν is resumptive; for the Apostle re-
turns to what he was speaking of at ver. 1., namely,
public prayer. Benson observes with how much
propriety the Apostle introduces this solemn asser-
tion of his Apostolic power, as ambassador from
God. Hence the βούλομαι of the Apostle here and
at 1 Tim. 5, 14. Tit. 3, 8. may very well be rendered
I desire, wish, direct. By τοὺς ἄνδρας the best Com-
mentators are agreed is meant, the men, as distin-
guished from the women. See the learned and able
note of Benson, who has (I think) proved the point.
Ἔν παντὶ τόπῳ is admitted by the best Commentators,
antient and modern, to be said emphatically ; q. d.
«not in Jerusalem only, but every where else,” 1. 6.
(as Grot. limits it) wherever the place is proper for
public prayer. There is reason to think that these
assemblies were at Ephesus, Corinth, and probably
elsewhere, held at private houses ; and consequently
the whole society was divided into many such con-
venticula.

8. ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας. The ἐπαίροντες ὁσίους
χεῖρας is only inserted (as the best Commentators
say) ex naturali orantium habitu. So Apulej. (cited

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. It. 219

by Pric.) Hic habitus orantium est, ut manibus in
ccelum extensis precemur.* By ὁσίους is meant pure
and undefiled; that which is properly applicable
only to the person, being applied to the hands ; as is
frequent in the Old Testament; as Ps. 26. “1 will
wash my hands in innocency, and so will come to
thy altar.” ‘* There is (as Benson says) both an allu-
sion to the raising of the hands in prayer, and the
washing them before prayer ; which was a symbolical
action, denoting the purity of intention which should
accompany prayer.” All this is so plain that it need
not be enlarged upon.

It is further directed to be χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλο-
γισμοῦ. What is meant by the former is clear. Theo-
phyl. explains it: μνησικακίας καὶ ἐμπαθείας τὸν πρὸς
τὸν ἀδελφὸν. And so (εμππιρη. and Theodoret,
and all the earlier modern Commentators, especially
Grot., who aptly compares Maimonid. in Regulis
orandi: ‘ Si quis senserit animum 5101 commotum et
cor turgens, ne oret, sed quiescat dum mens sit se-
data.” See Matt. 5, 24. and 6, 15. and the notes.
Doddr. however understands it of imprecatory Jan-
guage against their enemies mixed up with their
prayers. And he cautions those who join in free
prayer not to mingle their own angry and irregular
passions with their addresses to God; than which
nothing, he justly adds, can be more displeasing to
God, reproachful to Christian assemblies, or offen-
sive to persons of a right temper and disposition.
This indeed would be transgressing the Apostle’s
direction in the very worst manner: yet I can
hardly think he had it in view. With respect to the

* Here Wets. cites Galen: ὁσίας χεῖρας eis ἠέρα ἀείρας. Arist.
Eccl. 264. ras χεῖρας αἴρειν. Hor, Carm. 3, 23, 1. Calo supinas si
tuleris manus. To which I add Eurip. Iph. T. 269. θεοσεβὴς δ᾽
ἡμῶν τις dy, “Avéoxe χεῖρα, καὶ πρόσευξατ᾽ εἰσιδών. Aristid. 2,
398 D. οὐ τὰς χεῖρας ἄνω σὺν αἰδοῖ καὶ δέει συγγνώμην αἰτήσει τῶν
μέχρι τοῦδε ἡμαρτημένων τοὺς θεοὺς. Philo Jud. 648 c. καθαρὰς
καὶ παρθένους χείρας ἀνατείνας. Plut, Mar. 26. ἤυξατο κ, ἀνασχὼν
τὰς χεῖραξ.

220 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

διαλογισμιοῦ, it is explained by some, as Est., Benson,
and Heinr., of disputatious contention, debate, and
altercation respecting the taking the lead in a con-
gregation (see Rom. 14.), or on the question respect-
ing the reception of the Gentiles. Butit can hardly
be supposed that they brought such disputes to
prayer: and therefore I prefer the interpretation of
the antients and most moderns, doubting. So Theo-
phyl.: ἀμφιβολίαν Φησί: τουτέστιν, ἵνα μὴ ἀμφι βόλως
καὶ μετὰ δισταγμιοῦ προσέρχῃ, ἀλλὰ πιστεύων καὶ μὴ
διακρινόμιενος, τουτέστιν, ἀμφιβάλλων ὅτι ἢ λήψῃ, 7 οὐ
λήψη, ἃ αἰτεῖς. And this, as it is supported by so
many passages of Scripture, especially Joh. 1, 6.,
and (as Doddr. says) “ furnishes another important
thought on the subject,” seems to deserve the pre-
ference.
9, 10. ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰς γιναῖκας----ἀγαθῶν.

Here must be repeated βούλομαι, not (as Grot.) βούλομαι προ-
σεύχεσθαι ; which is plainly contrary to the Apostie’s intention,
(Rosenm.) And so most Interpreters, including the E. V., Doddr.,
and Mackn. But in this there is something awkward ; though
Mackn. helps it out by supplying, ‘‘ before appearing in the assem-
blies for worship :” which is, however, arbitrary and frigid. I can-
not but think, with Grot. and other moderns, and all the antients,
that the whole of the preceding is meant to be repeated: but (I
would add) with an adaptation of προσεύχεσθαι to the sense re-
quired by the context, namely, silent prayer : and when the Apostle
adds ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ, 1 think he means: “ Let them attend
the public prayers in modest apparel. And then at the following
words μετὰ αἴδους, the βούλομαι must be repeated, with the following
sense: “1 wish them (I say) to adorn themselves (on such occa-
sions) not in,” &c.

It is strange that Salmas., Koppe, and others, should have taken
καταστολὴ in the sense cohibitio, which is very frigid and inapposite,
It is rightly interpreted by the antients, and almost all moderns, of
apparel. So Theophyl.: ἀπαιτεῖ τὸ κατασταλεῖσθαὶϊ κοσμίως καὶ μὴ
περιεργῶς᾽ ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἐκεῖνο. He well explains καταστολὴ thus :
Καταστολὴν δὲ λέγει τὸ πάντοθεν περιεσταλῆναι καὶ συγκεκα-
λύφσθαι, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀνακεκαλύφθαι ἀναισχύντως. This the modern
Commentators have not attended to: though Hesych. explains it
περιβολὴν. The word occurs (among other passages cited by Wets.)
in Joseph. and Is. 61, 3. καταστολὴν δόξης, and also Plut. 1, 154.
καταστολὴν wea βαλίῆοῳ though it there means restraint.

The Apostle then adds, further to explain his meaning, pera
αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσυνῆς κοσμεῖν ἑαυτὰς. Of these words αἰδοῦς and
σωφροσυνῆς the former is said, by the Commentators, to relate to

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 22%

the countenance and conversation; the latter to the whole de-
meanour. Here Wets. adduces a vast number of Classical citations,
the most apposite of which are the following. Thucyd. J, 84,
aidovs σωφροσύνης πλεῖστον μετέχει. Arrian Epict. 4, 8. σώφρο-
σύνης, κοσμιότητος καὶ αἰδοῦς ἐραστὰς. J. Firmic. 8, 30. verecun-
dia, gravitate morum atque honestA conversatione ornatos, Xen,
Mem. 2. τὸ σῶμα τῇ καθαρότητι κεκοσμημένην, τὰ δὲ ὄμματα αἰδοῖ,
τὸ δὲ σχῆμα σωφροσύνῃ. But even these are not quite to the pur-
pose ; since the expressions are, perhaps, only to be regarded as ad-
verbial phrases for σωφρονῶς, &c.

The words following are further exegetical. The πλέγμ. is ex-
plained by Heinr.: “ annulus, quo implicantur, aut in cincinnos tor-
quentur crines, unde existebat ἐμπλοκὴ τριχῶν 1 Pet. 3,3. Heb,
mwpo ΠΩ», Jes. 3,24.” The χρυσῷ, he thinks, is to be united with
the πλέγμασιν by an hendiadis. Wetstein has here brought toge-
ther such an immense mass of passages illustrative of the words
πλέγμασιν and papyapiracs as might astonish the most dili-
gent collector ; yet they illustrate the subject less than could be
supposed, and most of them are superfluous, Of the use of gold in
the head-dress, and in other parts of female attire, we need not be
told: neither is this a place for minutiz of sucha kind. Omitting
these, therefore, I shall content myself with some original observa-
tions on the passage at large. The best Commentators in these
general and positive terms, seek a limitation. Of the various me-
thods pursued, the best is, to take οὐχ---ἀλλὰ in the sense non tam
—quam, examples of which are not unfrequent; as Luke 14, 12.
Joh, 6,27. Hos. 6, 6. and 1 Pet. 3, 3. ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν
(ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων, ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων)
κόσμος" ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας. So I would point: for the

use οὗ καὶ (not ἢ) before περιθέσεως χρυσίων shows that the
ΟΠ words are to be taken with the preceding ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν ; and
if so, they can mean nothing but golden combs, clasps, bands,
and other ornaments for the hair, as the learned have conjec-
tured, but not proved. So Thucyd. 1, 6., describes the antient
Athenians as χρυσῶν τεττίγων ἐνέρσει κρώβυλον ἀναδούμενοι τῶν
ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τριχῶν. The πλέγματα of St. Paul corresponds
to the κρωβύλοι of Thucyd.; and they both mean cincinna. And,
as in the passage of St. Paul, the word χρυσῷ comes immediately
after πλέγμασιν, and as the association of ideas would so naturally
(as in the case of St. Peter) lead to the mention of those golden
ornaments which adorned the hair, I would rather interpret it of
these, than of armlets, or ear-rings. Not so with the papyapirats,
by which I should understand finger-rings, armlets, necklaces, ear-

* Which may he illustrated from Artemid, 4, 73., p, 394., στολὴν,
ἦ ὑπόδησιν, ἢ ἐμπλέγματα γυναικεῖα. So the Etym. Mag.
explains ἐμπλέκτρια by κομμήτρια, qui crines intorquet. And τὰ ἐμ-
πλέγματα are instruments for binding the hair, like the χρυσαὶ rer-
riyes of the antient Athenians. Hence may be understood an ob-
scure passage of Artemid. 5, 53., ἔδοξε τις γυνὴ τὴν ἐμπλέκουσαν
ἀυτῇ θεράπαιναν κ, τ΄ Δ.» i, 6. τὴν ἐμπλεκτρίαν,

222 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

rings, and brooches, made of pearls, or other precious stones; for I
entirely agree with Schleus:, that μαργαρίτης sometimes “ latius
patere, et omnino lapides pretiosos significare.” I will only ob-
serve that as χρυσὸς and papyapira are here used for the orna-
ments made of those materials, so the Latins use aurum and
gemma; as Virg. Ain. 4, 138. Crines nodantur in aurum. And
Ovid Heroic. Epist. 21, 89. Ipsa dedit gemmas digitis, et omnibus

aurum.
The Apostles, therefore, both mean to admonish Christian women

to pay far less attention to external adorning than to internal, and to
make virtue their especial ornament. A very similar passage, which
will much illustrate these of the Apostles, occurs in Philostr.
Heroic. c. 13., éxoug re ἀνεπαχθῶς" ob yap ἤσκει τὴν κόμην, οὐδὲ
ὑπέκειτο αὐτῇ, ἀλλὰ μόνην τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐποιεῖτο κόσμημα, Where the
sentence ov γὰρ ἥσκει τὴν κόμην, is qualified and explained by the
following οὐδὲ ὑπέκειτο αὐτῇ. See also Melissa ad Clearetam, p.749.,
cited by Wets.

Upon the whole, it seems clear that the direction in question is
intended chiefly to apply to their dress at the religious assemblies ;
though it may be extended, mutatis mutandis, to their apparel at
other times.

° , ’

10. ἐπαγγελομέναις θεοσέβειαν. The verb ἐπαγγέ-
λεσθαι, like the Latin profiteri, is used with various
substantives in the accusative signifying the names
of sciences and arts, and sometimes those of mental
habits, and virtues, as here. Of all these examples
may be seen in Wets. Θεοσεβεία, properly signifies a
worship of God, and was applied by the Israelites to
the religious observances of a faithful devotee; but
it was borrowed, like many other words, and trans-
ferred to the Christian religion, with a change of sig-
nification, so as to denote what we call godliness.

11, 12. γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχία pavbaverw ἐν πάση ὑποταγῇ.
The best Commentators are agreed that this relates
to the same subject, namely, public worship; q. d.
“‘ Not only let the men alone pray, and the women be
clothed with modesty of every kind, but let the
women refrain from teaching : let the woman learn,”
&c. This is mentioned, lest it might have been sup-
posed that they were allowed to instruct, if not to
pray. Theophyl. well explains thus : Οὐ μόνον μέχρι
σχημάτων καὶ καταστολῆς κοσμία ἔστω ἡ γυνὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ
μέχρι φωνῆς" μὴ φθεγγέσθω γὰρ, φησι, μηδὲ περὶ πνευμα-
τικῶν, ἀλλὰ μανθανέτω μιόνον. Touro δὲ αὐτῇ ἔσται
μᾶλλον, ἐὰν ἡσυχάση.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. 223

11. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “in quiet silence.’ The words
following ἐν πάσῃ Urorayy are exegetical of the pre-
ceding, and signify ‘* with all obedience and submis-
sion.” Though the μανθανέτω might well indicate the
Apostle’s meaning, yet, to make it the more decided,
he adds γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν
ἀνδρὸς. The verb αὐθεντεῖν properly signifies ““ to slay
with one’s own hand ;” then, to do any thing (as we
familiarly say) of one’s own head (Meeris, αὐτοδικὸς),
or taking law into one’s own head. Hence it comes
to mean act the master, exercise authority over:
and thus it is here explained by the antients ἐξουσι-
agev. As verbs of ruling take the Genitive, so here
we have ἀνδρὸς, by which is meant, not husband, but,
ina general sense, man. Indeed ἀνδρὸς and γυναικὶ
may be said to stand for the male and female sex.

At εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, Heinr. subauds κελεύω. But
βούλομαι, Which has been used more than once, and
has nearly the same sense, is preferable. Rosenm.
explains the ἡσυχίᾳ by otio, 1. 6. a not discharging
any public office. But it seems rather to signify
silence, with the adjunct notion of obedience and
acquiescence.

The Philological Commentators here overwhelm
us with passages expressive of the duty of the female
sex to observe silence and obedience to themale !
But all this learning might have been spared; since
it is (I think) clear that the Apostle’s words only
apply to silence and obedience to the other sex in the
exercise of public worship: though I grant that
political and domestic subjection seems implied in the
argument for religious subordination. And, indeed,
considering the doctrine of the Old Testament and
the Jewish Law, St. Paul could consider the matter
in no other light.

18, 14. In adducing these reasons why the woman
should be in subjection to the man, we are to consi-
der St. Paul as a Jew urging such arguments as Jews
urged, and such as were understood and allowed by
Jews, and were regarded as popular arguments in

Q24 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

general, especially to those who, like the Gentile
Christians, acknowledged the authority of the Old
Testament. Compare a very similar passage of
1 Cor. 11, 8 & 9., where see the note. That the
Jews were accustomed thus to argue is clear from
the numerous Rabbinical passages adduced by Wets.
and Loesner. They regarded even those elements
which were first created as of greater dignity.

The ἐπλάσθη is used for ἐκτίσθη ; with a reference
to Gen. 2, 7. καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ
τῆς γῆς.

14.. ᾿Αδὰμ. οὐκ ἠπατήθη. The antient Commentators,
and most judicious moderns, rightly repeat πρῶτος
from the former verse. But it is also implied that
Adam was not deceived by the serpent, but by the
woman. Such is (I conceive) the true view of the
sense, which is obscured rather than illustrated b
many modern Commentators. See Pole and Wolf.

Of the next words 7 δὲ γυνὴ arariicion ἐν maga-
βάσει γέγονε no satisfactory account is given by the
Commentators. But it should seem that we have
only again to take ἀπατηθεῖσα for πρώτη arar., and
take ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε as meant κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, 1. 6.
« But the woman being (first) deceived, was espe-
cially in fault (for the phrase ἐν παραβάσει γίνεσθαι is
similar to in culpd esse, and savours of Latinism).’’
So Theophyl. observes: πρὸς τὴν σύγκρισιν οὖν τῆς
γυναικὸς αὐτὸν φησι μὴ ἀπατῆσθαι. For, (he adds) Eve
was brought over by desire; Adam, by the persua-
sions of his wife. And he sums up the general argu-
ment of the Apostle thus: ᾧησιν οὖν, ὅτι ἅπαξ ἐδίδαξεν
ἢ γυνὴ, καὶ πάντας κατέστρεψε" διὰ τοῦτο μὴ διδασκέτῳ
τὸ γένος" κούφον γὰρ ἐστι καὶ εὐπαράδεκτον, καὶ εὐπαρά-
ywyo. Theargument is built upon the original and
thence derived comparative imbecility and persua-
sibility of the female sex, and consequent unfitness
for public instruction.

15. σωθήσεται δὲ---σωφροσύνης.

There are few passages that have more exercised the Commenta-
tors than the present. All the various interpretations it were use-

J TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. pe £8

less for me to detail and review. I shall therefore notice the prin-
cipal ones.

The antient and many eminent modern Commentators, as Crell.,
Le Clere, and especially the recent ones, interpret the rexvo-
yoréas of education. But this is quite unsupported by authority, or
even analogy ; and yields too limited a sense. Rosenm. (from the
Syr.and Crell.) takes the διὰ for σὺν; and τεκνογονέας for the off
spring, the children themselves : which, he thinks, is confirmed by
μείνωσιν. But that admits ofa more natural interpretation in ano-
ther way ; and this use of διὰ in so uncommon a sense with rexy.
is unprecedented, and too little analogical to permit any confidence
in this interpretation, which, indeed, yields a very frigid sense. I
should prefer that of Knatchbull, Hammond, Kidder, Doddr.,
Wells, Harris, and Mackn., who understand τῆς recy. of the bringing
forth of the promised Messiah: which they think countenanced by
the article, and agreeable to the context. Yet it involves too much
harshness ; and those are precarious grounds on which to rest such
a sense; nor (as Benson observes) is there any where else in Scrip-
ture any allusion to such a promise. The least objectionable inter-
pretation seems to be that of many eminent moderns, as Whitby,
Locke, Benson, and others, who take the διὰ in the sense through,
and regard this as a general intimation that pious women might
cheerfully commit themselves to God in the hour of nature’s dis-
tress, if they trusted in God, maintaining charity withal, persevering
in chastity, and strictly adhering to the laws of temperance in every
other respect. But this lies open to the objection that the deliver-
ance is not confined to Christian, or even virtuous women: and
though the answer of Whitby seems plausible, it is not satisfactory.
I would observe that the nature of the context evidently requires
σωθήσεται to be taken, not in the sense of temporal deliverance, but
of salvation in the theological sense. Then it has not been suffi-
ciently attended to that at σωθ. we are to repeat γυνὴ, and take it
of the whole sex; by which we meet the objection that many die
virgins, and others do not bear children. Finally, the sense of the
passage, which is expressed populariter, and therefore must not be
too much pressed upon, seems to be as follows: ‘‘ The sex, how-
ever, which was the means of bringing such ruin on the human
race, will not suffer the punishment of this, but will only undergo
that temporal penalty which was denounced in the curse on the
first parent: it will, I say, be saved, as a sex, and all the individuals
of it, if they embrace and continue in the Christian faith, and espe-
cially practise those duties of loving obedience, holiness, and mo-
desty, which it enjoins.” This view of the passage is (I find) nearly
the same with that which appears to have been taken by Calvin ;
and it seems to be liable to no serious objection: for the enallage is
too common to create any difficulty.

VOL. VIII. Q

226 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.

Hitherto the Apostle has been speaking of public
prayer in sacred assemblies. Now a new subject is
introduced, on the virtues required in him who
should preside as supreme teacher over these assem-
blies (ver. 1—7. Compare 1 Pet. 5, 1. seqq.) ; which
leads the Apostle to notice those desired in a consci-
entious administrator of the public property. (ver. 8
—13.) (Heinr.)

VersE 1. πιστὸς ὃ λόγος. On these words the
Commentators are at issue. ‘The antients and some
moderns (as Pisc., Mag., Wells, and Slade) refer
them to the preceding. Others, as the most eminent
moderns, to the following, and (I think) with most
reason: for though Mr. Slade urges that the same
phrase is referred to what goes before at c. 4, 9.;
yet it there rather refers to the whole of the context ;
and this formula is unquestionably referred to the
following, supra 1, 15. And as to his objection,
that the words scarcely suit the subject, and the
Chapter did not require to be thus solemnly intro-
duced ; I answer that it is not necessary to press on
the sense of πιστὸς, which is well rendered in our
Common Version, frue. And so 1, 15. 2 Tim. 2,
11. Tit. 1,9. πιστοῦ λόγουι Apoc. 21, 5. ὅτι οὗτοι οἱ
λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί" & 22, 0.

Before εἴ τις must be supplied ὅτι, which is omit-
ted, to impart vigour to the sentence by the asyn-
deton.

1. ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται. Here there is an idiom
common in the Classical writers. ‘Thus Diodor.
Sic. L. 14. (cited by Munthe) ἡγεμονίας ὀρέγεσθαι.
‘Exioxorys, office of a Bishop. Karod evyo. The
‘addition of the word ἔργου shows that the Apostle
adverts to the duty itself, and not to the honour or
emolument ; and I cannot but think that he meant
thus to hint that the former, not the latter, was to be

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 227

coveted.* *Epyov is always used of a laborious and
weighty office. So Tsocrat. Dem. (cited by Wets.)
τοὺς δόξης ὁρεγομιένους ---ὅσοι μὲν οὖν πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτῶν
Φίλους, τοὺς προτρεπτικοὺς λόγους συγγράφουσι, καλὺν

ἔργον ἐπιχειροῦσι.

Rosenm. briefly remarks on the term ἐπίσκοπος : ““ ἢ. 1. est doctor
et antistes.’ But the matter is not to be d'smissed in so hasty and
summary a manner See on Philip. 1, 1. Theodoret annotates
thus : ᾿Επίσκοπον δὲ ἐνταῦθα τὸν πρεσβύτερον λέγει, ὡς τὴν πρὸς
Φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολὴν ἑρμηνεύοντες ἀπεδείξαμεν" ῥάδιον δὲ τοῦτο
καὶ ἐντεῦθεν καταμαθεῖν" μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς ἐπισκοπι! τοὺς νόμους τοὺς τοῖς
διακόνοις προσήκοντας γράφει, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους παραλιπὼν" ἄλλ᾽
ὅπερ ἔφην, τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν πότε πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπισκόπους"
τοὺς δὲ νῦν καλουμένους ἐπισκόπους, ἀποστόλους ὠνόμαξον" τοῦ δὲ
χρόνου πορϊόντος, τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀποστ ολῆς ὄνομα τοῖς ἀληθῶς é ἀποστό-
λοις κατέλιπον" τὴν δὲ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς προσηγορίαν τοῖς πάλαι καλου-
μένοις ἀποστόλοις ἐπέθεσαν" οὕτω Φιλιππησίων ἀπόστολος ὁ Ἕπα-
φρύδιτος ἢ ἦν" ὑμῶν γὰρ, φησὶν, ἀπόστολον, καὶ συνεργὸν τῆς χρείας
μου" οὕτω Ἱζρητῶν ὁ Tiros, καὶ ᾿Ασιανῶν 6 Ψιμύθεος ὦ ἀπόστολοι" οὕτω
ἀπὸ τῶν “Ἱεροσολύμων τοῖς ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ
οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως εἰ καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ταῦτα ὁ θεῖος ἐ ἐνομοτέ-
θησε Παῦλος, εὔδηλον ὡς τοὺς ἐπισκοποὺς πρώτους προσήκει τούτους
φυλάττειν τοὺς νόμους, ἅτε δὴ καὶ μείξονος μεταλαχόντας τιμῆς.

On the term in question see Schleus., who observes, from Suidas,
that among the Athenians the name ἐπισκόποι was given to οἱ
eis τὰς ὑπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι.
He might have cited Appian, 1, 705, 39. Φιλοποίμενα---ἐπίσκοπον
᾿Ἐφεσίων.

2. Now follow the qualifications which in the elec-
tion of Bishops were especially to be regarded.

2. ἀνεπίληπτος 1s properly an agonistical term, sig-
nifying one who gives his adversary no hold upon
him; but it is often (as here) applied metaphorically
to him who gives others no handle to justly accuse
him. Whether there be any mystical allusion (as
Grot. and others say) to the requisition under the
law, that the priests were to be without bodily infir-
mities (see Lev. 21,16.) seems doubtful.
© 2. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα.

The meaning of these words has been very warmly debated. My
limits will not permit me to detail at large the various opinions :

* So Theodoret : οὐχ ἀπλῶς τῆς ἐπιθυμίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς φιλαρχίας
κατηγορεῖ" καὶ διδάσκει μὴ τιμῆς, ἀλλ᾽ eae ὀρέγεσθαι" μὴ τὴν

ἀξίαν ποθεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἀξίας τὸ ἔργον ἐπιξητεῖν. «"

q2

228 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ill.

and therefore I must refer the reader to Pole, Benson, and Mackn.
That the Apostle forbids polygamy, is plain: and the only question
is whether he means successive, or simultaneous polygamy. The
former position is maintained by almost all the Roman Catholic,
and many Protestant Commentators. They are, however, not agreed
on the exact kind. Some take it of the polygamy of having more
than two females, who, though not in the possession of conjugal
rights, have, at least by unjust divorce, a claim to them. So Hamm.
&e. Others, as almost all the Catholic Commentators, and also
Grot. and Wets., understand this as forbidding second marriages,
after the death of the other party. The maintainers of this opi-
nion are properly called Monogamists. The latter position, namely,
that it applies to simultaneous polygamy, is supported by the most
eminent Protestant Commentators, especially Benson: and such
are called Deulerogamists. The question (which is indeed a per-
plexing one) seems to be almost wholly at issue between the two
classes, the Monogamists and the Deuterogamists properly so called.
And I must confess that great erudition, and what appears great au-
thority, is ranged on the former side. On the latter, though far less
learning, yet, Ε apprehend, greater show of reason is found. Indeed
as to the former class, the authority is less powerful than it seems
to be; since such works as the Constit. Apostolici, Constit. Clem.
and others, are generally admitted not to be of the high antiquity
claimed for them by some; or, at all events, they are interpo-
lated. And though Tertullian, a very antient Father, was a Mono-
gamist, yet his opinions on many other points are so eccentric as to
greatly weaken his authority on any. And as to Clemens, Aler., and
others, they were of a much later period; and there is reason to
think that the dogmas in support of celibacy and monkery had very
early started up in the Church. Besides, to their’s we may oppose
the opinion of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Jerome, passages
from whom are cited by Benson. To which it may be added, that
the annotation of Theodoret (who almost always compiles from the
best authorities) is in favour of deuterogamy; i.e. he takes the
passage as forbidding polygamy. His observations are so admirable
that, though somewhat long, I cannot but detail them. Πάλαι
γὰρ εἰώθεισαν καὶ λληνες καὶ Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ δύο καὶ τρὶσὶ καὶ πλείοσι
γυναιξὶ νόμῳ γάμου κατὰ ταῦτον συνοικεῖν" τινες δὲ καὶ νῦν, καίτοι
τῶν βασιλικῶν νόμων δύο κατὰ ταῦτον ἄγεσθαι κωλνόντων γυναῖκας,
καὶ παλλακῖσι μίγνυνται, καὶ ἑταίραις ἔφασαν τοίνυν τὸν θεῖον
ἀπόστολον εἰρηκέναι; τὸν μιᾷ μόνῃ γυναικὶ συνοικοῦντα σωφρονῶς,
τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἄξιον εἶναι χειροτονίας" οὐ γὰρ τὸν δεύτερον, φασὶν,
ἐξέβαλε γάμον, ὅγε πολλάκις τοῦτο γενέσθαι κελεύσας" γυνὴ γὰρ,
φησὶ, δέδεται νόμῳ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον χρόνον Eh ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς" ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ
ὁ ἀνὴρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν Κυρίφ' καὶ
πάλιν" λέγω δὲ ταῖς ἀγάμοις, καὶ ταῖς χήραις᾽ καὶ συνάψας ἑκάτερον
τάγμα, ἕνα τέθεικε νόμον" τῷ ὄντι γὰρ περκειμένης τῆς ἐγκρατείας
οὗ τῆς γνώμης ἣ διγαμία' εἰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς τὴν προτέραν ἐκβαλὼν
ἑτέρᾳ συνεξύγῃ, μέμψεως ἄξιος καὶ κατηγορίας ὑπεύϑονος" εἰ δὲ τὸ
βίαιον τοῦ θανάτου διέξευξε τὴν προτέραν, ἡ δὲ φύσις ἐπικειμένη

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 229

δευτέρᾳ δευχθῆναι κατηνάγκασε γυναικὶ, οὐκ ἐκ γγώμης, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
περιστάσεως ὁ δεύτερος γεγένηται γάμος. And ‘Theophyl. seems to
have been of the same opinion. Nay, even Chrys. himself, though
he says very little, appears to have been a Deuterogamist. The
purpose of the Apostle, he says, was τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύειν. But
how can it justly be thought an ἀμετρία to marry a second wife
after the death of the first, especially in an age so corrupt as the
apostolic? Besides, as Benson justly observes, the Apostle at Hebr.
13, 4., speaks of marriage as honourable for all ; and in this Epistle
he speaks with severity of those who forbid to marry. (See more in
Benson.) Moreover, as we have seen that the authorities of the
Monogamists are not very formidable, so, I think, it will appear
that their arguments are as little so. I may, however, be excused
detailing them; and the reader is referred to Whitby, Benson,
Doddrige, Macknight, Rosenmuller, and Heinr. Jaspis de-
cides the matter thus: ‘Qui secundas celebrabat nuptias, ni-
mie intemperantiz et incontinentie accusabatur, fides, priori
uxori data, neglecta videbatur, novercam in familiam inducere
eique liberos prioris conjugis tradere, periculosum ducebatur.
Huic opinioni caut® se accommodat Paulus, ut 5, 9, Efr. Tit.
1,6. Neque vero ideo scripsit commune praceptum seu legem
omni tempore observandam. Regula modo est prudentiz, ut 5
c. 1 Cor. 7. 15." I am inclined to acquiesce in the opinion that
the Apostle intended to repress all intemperance by forbidding
polygamy both simultaneous and successive (i.e. by causeless di-
vorce*). But, after all, the point in question is so little capable of
positive determination, that perhaps the most prudent verdict of a
critical jury would be in this, as in many other cases, ‘* Non liquet.”
At all events, we see how little the Romanists have to plead in de-
fence of the celibacy of the clergy.

2. νηφάλεον, cwhpova, κόσμιον, vigilant, sober, or-
derly. (See Theophyl.) These epithets seem to
form a character. ‘That such should be the quali-
fications of Christian Bishops, is no wonder ; since
we find from the Classical writers that many of them
were required even in the Heathen Priests. So
/&schyl. Theb. 606. Οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ μάντις σώφρων, di-

* It is strange that any, as Cameron, should have supposed the
Apostle meant only to enjoin conjugal fidelity to a wife. For surely
none could need to be told that an adulterer was no fit person to be
Bishop.

Tt This is suggested by the very term ἐπίσκοπος, which implies
vigilant superintendence. In this view I would cite an interesting
passage adduced from an antient Poet in the Schol. on Eurip,
Pheen. 1123. Kai οἱ ἐπίσκοπον. “Apyov tel κρατερόν τε μέγαν τε,
Τέτροσιν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρώμενον ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα" ᾿Ακάματον δὲ οἱ ὦρσε
θεὰ μένος, οὐδὲ οἱ ὕπνος Πίπτεν ἐπὶ βλεφάροι», φυλακὴ δ᾽ ἔχεν ἔμπεδον
αὐτὸν.

230 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

καιὸς, ἀγαθὸς, εὐσεβὴς avijo, μέγας προφήτης. ‘Thus
the terms here used are sometimes found in the
Classical writers; especially the two last. Wets.
adduces several examples, to which I add Herodian
1, 2, 3. & 1, 8, 5. Κόσμιος signifies decorous, orderly.
So Theophyl. explains it σεμνοπρεπῆ. In the same
sense σέμνος is used, Tit. 2, ὦ. and Phil. 4, 8.

Φιλόξενον, hospitable. A quality, it may be ob-
served, especially necessary for those times, in which,
as there were no inns, it was the more a duty to
relieve the wants of strangers, travellers, &c. See
Rom. 12, 13. In the parallel passage of Titus there
isadded Φηλάγαθον.

Διδακτικόν. It is strange that Schleus. should
render this docibilis, i. e. one who is docile, will not
obstinately have his own way. It rather denotes
one possessing the knowledge to teach and the fa-
culty of communicating it, so as to be an useful
instructor. So Tit. 1, 7. ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν
διδαχηὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ἦ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούση, καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας
ἐλέγχειν.

8. μὴ πάροινον. The antient, and some modern
Commentators, as Erasm. and Pric., and most recent
ones, explain this ὑβριστὴν. And the word sometimes
has that sense, since it not only denotes the use of
wine, παρὰ τὸ δέον, but the brutal spirit which it en-
genders. Yet one can scarcely see why the Apostle
should mention that; since it is not likely that any
one stained with such a vice would be elected. See
the note infr. ver. 8. He rather seems, by the μὴ
πάροινον---οἰσ χροκερὸη, to advert to certain habits
which, not being decidedly vicious, might, in the
opinion of some, not quite unfit a man for the office
in question, and which, considering the prevalence
of drunkenness, he would be likely to contract. The
term, therefore, seems to be synonymous with the
μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῴ προσέχοντας said of the Deacons at
ver. 8., and may be rendered: ‘not given to much
wine.”

ae τ

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 231

Πλήκτην. This is usually taken in the physical
sense, vo striker, non manu promptus, as says Gell.
20,1. But it is objected, that it is no great matter for
a Bishop to abstain from this. Both the antients
and the most eminent moderns take it in a metapho-
rical sense, to denote pugnacious, quarrelsome ;
which seems confirmed by the antithetical ἄμαχον."
The antients explain it, one who indulges in bitter
and severe invectives. Which may be included ;
since it is becoming in a Bishop to correct in the
spirit of meekness ; and, to use the words of Jaspis,
sit potius ἐπιεικὴς, ἐγχωρών, μέτριος, NON summi juris
semper tenax, sed pronus ad ferendam et condonan-
dam injuriam,

8. μὴ αἰσ χροκερδῆ. This is usually interpreted, ‘not
guilty of filthy lacre, not sordidly covetous.” But
this is liable to the same objection as certain inter-
pretations of rapoivos and πλήκτης just adverted to.
Nor are we confined to such a sense.. The term aic-
χροκερδὴς is of extensive signification, and denotes
not only a lover of filthy lucre, but “ one who would
gain money by any methods, if not dishonest, yet
discreditable.” So Theophyl.: ὁ μηδὲν κέρδος παραι-
Toupevos, Kav ὕθεν δήποτε ἡ. And the best modern
Commentators are agreed that this is the sense here.
So Crell., Mackn., and Jaspis, which last Commen-
tator observes: ““ Artem sellularium et opificium
simul quidem tractare poterat, id quod tum necesse
erat, sed sordidum interdicitur vitee genus ; vetatur
item usuraria pravitas ac ludendi libido, et omnis
turpis questus vel in honesto vite genere.” See the
numerous Classical citations of Wets., few, however,

* The Commentators cite Plut. 1, 298., τῇ δὲ χειρὶ πλήκτης ; and
403., ἀνὴρ πλήκτης. To which I would add Plut. Crass. 9., πλήκται
καὶ ποδωκεῖς ἄνδρες, i. 6. μαχίμοι. Thucyd. 3, 82, 8., τὸ δὲ ἐμπλήκ-
της ὀξὺ, Fab. 11, 19., κατὰ χεῖρα πλήκτης ἀνὴρ. Dicearch. p. 15.,
θρασεῖς δὲ καὶ ὑβρισταὶ καὶ ὑπερήφανοι πλῆκται τε kK. τ Δ’ And
Pollux 6, 129., reckons, among the disturbers of a state, τοὺς πλῆκ-
TUS.

232 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

of which are apposite.* It therefore signifies a dis-
creditable, dirty, base, way of getting money ; though
it may also include the other sense, namely avarice,
or over fondness for money, which is base in a Priest,
of whatever denomination: for (as Doddr. observes)
never does an eagerness or greediness in pursuit of
money appear more dishonorable and sordid than in
persons of that noble profession.

It is strange that so many Critics should have
thought the word aicyp. not genuine, and that it
should have been cancelled by Griesb. It is only
omitted in a comparatively few MSS. including
most of those that have been emended; and the
genuineness of the word is established by the an-
tithesis (See Wolf and Wets.); therefore as to
what is urged by those who cancel the word, that it
was introduced iz order to complete the antithesis,
this is (as Wolf observes) too subtle a mode of
reasoning.

᾿Επιεικῆ. Compare Eph. 4, 5. "Apayov is opposed
to the πλήκτης, and signifies ἀφιλόνεικον, one who is

* The most so is Aristot. Nich. 4, 3., ὁ μέντοι κυβευτὴς, καὶ ὁ λω-
ποδύτης, καὶ ὁ λῃστὴς τῶν ἀνελευθέρων εἰσιν, αἰσχροκερδεῖς ; where,
by the λωπὸδ. ([ apprehend) is meant one of those desperados who,
both in antient and modern times, accompany an army, in order to
strip the dead: an occupation dangerous as well as disgraceful. By
the ὁ ληστὴς is meant, not a thief, or robber, but a sort of marau-
ders who folleowed an army for plunder, and also carried on a sort
of privateering, and lived by rapine. This sense of the word often
occurs in Thucyd., Xenophon., and other antient writers. To the
above passages I would add Aristot. Rhet. p. 107., where he
mentions τὸ κερδαίνειν ἀπὸ μικρῶν, ἢ ἀπὸ αἰσχρῶν κι τ λ. And
then he adds that this arises ἀπὸ αἰσχροκερδείας καὶ ἀνελευθερίας.
And in Eth., p. 139., he mentions τοὺς ἀνελευθεροὺς ἐργασίας ἐργα-
Θόμενοι, to which he attributes αἰσχροκερδεία : subjoining, πάντες
γὰρ ἕνεκα κέρδους καὶ τούτου μίκρου ὀνείδη ὑπομένουσι. See also
two fine sketches in Theophr. Ch. Eth., περὶ ἀναισχυντίας (on un-
blushing shabbiness and meanness), and περὶ αἰσχροκερδείας, the former
of which he defines a καταφρόνησις δόξης, αἰσχρῦυ ἕνεκα κέρδους 5
and the latter, a περιουσία κέρδους αἰσχροῦ, which (though the
Commentators do not notice it) signifies, a being overcome by base
gain, so as to do any thing for the sake of it, i. e. κέρδους ἤττων, or
ἡττώμενος, Which terms often occur in the best Classical writers ; as
I shall show on Thucyd. 2, 60,

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP, III. 233

not over tenacious of his right. I would compare
Herodot. 5, 53, 16., πολλοὶ τῶν δικαιών τὰ ἐπιεικέστερα
προτιθέασι.

The ἀφιλάργυρον answers to the μὴ | aio χροκερδη Ἔ.

4. τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμιενον, “one who
manages and regulates well his own family.” Of the
Classical passages cited by Wets., the most apposite is
Diog. Laert. 1, 70., μανθάνειν τῆς αὐτοῦ οἰκίας καλῶς
προστατεῖν. ‘Lo which I add Dionys. Hal. 1, 178.,
ἐμέμφετο δὲ TOUS KAKWS προισταμένους τῶν ἰδιῶν. Tacit.
Germ. suam quisque sedem, suos Penates regit. See
also Eurip. ‘Troad. 662., et seqq., Herodian 2, 173.,
and Philostr. Vit. Soph. 1, 2.

The words following are exegetical, and show that
this regulation is to be effected by a dignified firm-
ness in holding the reins of government: for I
cannot, with some recent Commentators, refer the
μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος. ἴο the children.

5. εἰ δὲ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου --ἐπιμελήσεται ; : The senti-
ment is plain, and appears to have been founded on a
sort of proverb, which occurs in various authors, and of
which the Philological Commentators have adduced
many examples; namely, “ that he who cannot take
care of his private affairs, is not fit to be entrusted
with the administration of public business ;” every
family being regarded as a little republic.

It is observed by Theophyl., in answer to those
who thought the Apostle might have been expected
to require more from the Bishops than these humble
qualifications, nay, something of angelic purity (ἀγ-

* The effect produced by this admonition of the Apostle seems,
from the records of early Ecclesiastical History, not to have been so
great as might have been wished. My learned readers will remember
some passages of Euseb. and other writers. But few may be aware
of the following curious passage from an Epistle of Libanius to St.
Basil (Ep. 1592., Ed. Wolf.), πᾶς μὲν ἐπίσκοπος πρᾶγμα δυσγρίπισ-
τον, Angl. ““α sadly griping, tenacious sort of body.” In his answer,
however, Basil well retorts the charge on Sophists, who traffic in
words and speeches, as those who hawk about the μελέπηκτα (honey-
cakes and gingerbread) : whereas, asks he, τις τῶν ἐπισκόπων τοὺς
λόγους ἐφοροθέτησε ; τις τοὺς μαθητευομένους μισθοφόρους κατέστη-
σεν; This was indeed giving him a Rowland for his Oliver!

234 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

γελικὸν βίον καὶ ἀπαθὴ), that these ἐπίσκοποι being then
appointed over every city or large town, and many
being wanted, it was prudent in the Apostle to re-
quire σύμμετρον ἀρετὴν ἥν πολλοῖς ἐνῆν εὑρεῖν.

6. μὴ νεόφυτον, “ποῦ anew convert, yet, as it were,
in his noviciate; by a metaphor like 1 Cor. 3, 6. ἐγὼ
ἐφύτευσα. Seealso Is. 5, 7. and Job. 14, 9. ‘Thus
the term is explained by the antients νεοβάπτιστος,
νεοκοπήχητος, προσήλυτος. Heinr. takes it to mean
adolescentem, a raw youth, little acquainted with
life. And he cites Tacit. Ann. 4, 17. ne quis mo-
biles adolescentium animos preematuris honoribus ad
superbiam extolleret. But this does not so well suit
the words following. Besides, ‘Timothy himself was
avery young man, else the Apostle would have had
no reason to say Μηδεὶς σοῦ τὴν νεότητα καταφρονείτω.

6. ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέση τοῦ διαβόλου.
The τυφωθεὶς signifies puffed up with pride. So Theo-
phyl.: Φυσιουμένος ; and Theodoret: τῆς aragovelas
τὸ πάθος δεξάμενος. This is supposed to proceed from
that comparative ignorance which may be expected
in a new convert; and the term is elsewhere used

Σ But perhaps the best answer is, that such objections confound
the Bishop and the individual, the former of which alone the Apostle
has here in view; so that it would have been irrelevant to say: a
Bishop shall be one who crucifies the flesh, that takes up his cross
daily, ἃς, These are the qualifications of the man, and not the
Bishop, and are supposed, but cannot he ascertained. Besides, I
cannot admit that the standard is fixed too low. For ifa Bishop be
νηφάλιος, σωφρὼν, κόσμιος, φιλόξενος, διδακτικὸς »ἐπιεικῆς, ἄμαχος. ἀφι-
λάργυρος, τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προιστάμενος, μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἐ ἔχων
ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, 1 can hardly see what more could be desired! And
if it be said that the Apostle might have added, ““ He shall be ready
(as his Divine Master says) to lay down his life for the sheep,” I
answer, that could not well be considered as a qualification to be
contemplated by electors, since not the individual himself could tell
that, but the Searcher of all hearts. Besides, to have mentioned that
would have been discouraging any from undertaking the office,
And let it be remembered, that many Bishops did lay down their
lives for the sheep, and have continued so to do in after times ; and
even we Protestants can boast of some Bishops who are justly
reckoned as not the least illustrious in the noble army of martyrs
and confessors of the faith.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 235

with words expressive of ignorance. So infra 6, 9.
τετύφωται μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος : and Polyb. 2, 81. ἀγνοεῖ
καὶ τετύφωται, cited by Schleus. in voc. to whose ex-
amples I add Aristid. 2, 67 c. τι δεῖ τετυφωμένως οὕτω
φιλονεικεῖν. Liban. 216 c. ἐμπληκτοὺς καὶ τετυφωμέ-
νους, and Marc. Anton. 12, 27. f. ὑπὸ ἀτυφίᾳ (I con-
jecture ἀτυφίας) τύφος τυφόμιενος πάντων χαλεπώτατος.
And not only does ignorance generate pride, but
novelty, especially in the young, engenders what
Thucyd. calls the τὸ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ generally found in
new converts, but inconsistent with the ἐπιεικεία, σω-
Φροσύνη, and κοσμιότης before mentioned. ‘The
words ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα éuméon τοῦ διαβόλου are ex-
plained by Luther and Erasm., and also by most re-
cent Commentators, of falling under the censure of
the calumniator. But this sense of διάβολος is so
little supported by the authority of the New Testa-
ment, and so little agreeable to the context, that I
cannot but reject it. “he common interpretation,
by which the διάβ. is taken of the Arch enemy, the
author of all evil, who, as we learn from Scripture,
thus, “ fell from his high estate” by pride, is so na-
tural that nothing more can be desired. Theophyl.
well explains thus: εἰς τὸ κατάκριμα, Kal εἰς τὴν κατα-
δίκην τοῦ διαβόλου πεσεῖται, ἥν τινα ἐκεῖνος ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπο-
νοίας ὑπέστη, “ fall under the same condemnation and
punishment which he did.” And so Gicumen.

7. δεῖ δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν
ἔξωθεν. Tangi hac admonitione ipse ‘limotheus,
utpote juvenis, videbatur: inde in ejus solatium
addit: def Kar. μαρτ. ἔχειν, quo Timotheus gaudebat,
Actor. 16, 2. (Hein.) The μαρτυρ. kaa. must (‘Theo-
phyl. says,) regard his life, and not his doctrine. For
the morals of any Christian teacher they will scarcely
ever censure causelessly. Thus they did not call
the Apostles fornicators, or lewed persons, but im-
postors. ‘“ If (adds he) any one should be of bad
repute, though causelessly, let him not be appointed
a Bishop.” The μαρτυρία may be rendered charac-
ter. By the τῶν ἔξωθεν are meant non-christians,

236 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ii.

whether Jews or Gentiles (as 1 Thess. 4, 2. and Col.
4, 5.), called at Eph. 2, 13. of μακρὰν, as Christians
οἱ ἔγγυς.

The sense of the words following ἵνα μὴ---- Διαβόλου
is somewhat obscure, and has been differently ex-
plained by both antients and moderns. ‘Theophyl.,
Cicumen., and many others offer the most contort
expositions ; and that of Heinr., “ notat culpam ali-
orum et malitiosam insectationem,” is too far fetched
to deserve attention. Benson and Rosenm. explain
it of falling into the censure and snares laid by the
adversary or accuser. But this is frigid; and had
such been the sense intended, the article would
not have been used. Nor can I recognise, with
some, an hendiadis. ‘The best way of removing the
difficulty is by supposing, with ‘Theodoret, Grot.,
and Doddr., that the words μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν
chiefly regard his character before his conversion.
So Theodoret: ὁ γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις πλείστην ἔχων πρὸ
τῆς χειροντονίας διαβολὴν, ἐπονείδιστος τὸ κοινὸν, καὶ εἰς
τὴν προτέραν ὅτι τάχιστα παλινδρομήσει παρανομίαν, τοῦ
διαβόλου πάντα πρὸς τοῦτο μηχανωμένους Such (ob-
serves Grot.) as had been οἵ bad repute might be
received as Christians, but are here forbidden to be
made Presbyters, the reason for which is subjoined.”

The force of the εἰς ὀνειδ, is clear; but not so with
the καὶ (εἰς) παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλουι It cannot (I think)
mean, what many antient and modern Commentators
suppose, a temptation to anger and revenge of their
injustice; but rather (as Theophyl. and Doddr. in-
terpret,) a temptation (strangely besetting to human
nature) not be scandalized for nothing. See Doddr.
It is truly remarked by Theophyl., that if it is neces-
sary he should have a good testimony (or character)
with those without, still more ought he to have it
with those within. Thoughts (to use the words of
Doddr.) worthy the consideration of all candidates
for the ministry who have been profligate in their
lives, and of those who, after having been so, wish
to return to it. (See also Mackn.) Worthy, too (1

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 237

would add), is it the consideration of those who
venture to incur the awful responsibility of placing
them in situations where they can neither have a
καλὴν μαρτυρίαν from those within, nor those without,
and where a confidence once broken can scarcely be
renewed.

8. The qualifications mentioned in regard to Dea-
cons are nearly the same with those of Bishops, only
not so many. ‘They are (for instance) not called
upon to be νηφάλιοι or διδακτικοί, The φιλόξενον (I
conjecture) is not mentioned, because they seem to
have had no stipend ; and the ἐπιεικὴς and ἄμαχος are
not touched upon, because they had little or no au-
thority properly so called. The ὡσαύτως (as Chrys.
observes) regards what follows.

8. Μὴ διλόγους. This is explained by most Com-
mentators mendaces. And. they cite from Virg.,
Tyriosque bilingues: and compare the διψύχος of
James 4, 8. But it is best explained by Theophyl.
(from Chrys.) μὴ ὑπούλους καὶ δολεροὺς, ἀλλὰ φρονοῦντας
κἀὶ ἄλλα λέγοντας, καὶ ἄλλα τούτοις, καὶ ἄλλα ἐκείνοις.
The terms δίλογος and διλογεῖν are indeed used by
good authors, but more frequently δίγλωσσος ; and it
is possible that St. Paul might have in mind this
passage of Sirach 28, 14. ψιθυρὸν καὶ diyawoooy.* Why
the Apostle should have required this the Commen-
tators do not offer any satisfactory reason. For as
to διλογία, in commercial transactions (which Heinr.
supposes) it can hardly be imagined. ‘The Apostle,
I should conjecture, has rather regard to that can-
did, frank, and ingenuous spirit which in persons
who (like the Deacons) went, as it ‘were, between
the Bishop and the people, would be highly neces-
sary, especially as difference of opinion respecting
Jewish rites and ceremonies existed among the
congregation.

8. μηὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, “not given to much

* I would also compare Solon ap. Ὁ). Laert.1, 61. TAdaoa δὲ οἱ

ἡδόμεθα ἐκ μελαίνης φρεγὸς γεγωνῇ. See also Eurip. Troad 288,
atth,

238 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

wine. Theophyl. observes, that the Apostle does
not say μὴ μεθύσους ; for that were altogether un-
worthy; but not great drinkers; for even if it pro-
duce not inebriation, much wine weakens the tone of
the mind.* Nay even the Heathen priests, on hav-
ing to enter a temple, did not drink wine. Lf oce-
yew, in the sense to be habituated to, prone to, is fre-
quent. See the Philological Commentators.

8. uy αἰσχροκερδεῖς. ‘he term must be taken with
the same latitude as at ver. 3. and yet freedom from
avarice is chiefly intended; since great was the
temptation that attended the office in question. And
I entirely agree with Heinr., that in a populous
trading place like Ephesus this admonition was the
more necessary.

9. ἔχοντας---συνειδήσει. Most modern Commenta-
tors take ἔχ. for karey., ‘ holding fast the true doc-
trine ;” in opposition to the Judaizers. But it may
be sufficient, with the antients, to interpret it, pro-
fessing, maintaining. Rosenm. renders: “ reti-
nentes Christianam doctrinam et puram conscien-
tiam.” I propose, with Pisc. and Erasmus, to take
ev for σὺν, with. So Theophyl.: μετὰ rod τὸ δόγμα
ὀρθὸν τηρεῖν, ἔχοντας καὶ βίον ἀνεπίληπτον. Grot. takes
it in the sense by (like the Hebr. 3); since those
who neglect faith lose a good conscience. See 1,
19. and also 1, 5. On μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως for ‘the
truths of the Gospel,” see Eph. 1, 9. and 6, 19. Col.
4, 3. and the notes.

10. καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαϑέσθωσαν---ὔντες, “ And let
these, too, be examined and put to the proof; and
then let them, if found irreproachable, exercise the
office.” Δὲ, too, i. 6. as well as the Bishops: for the
best Commentators are agreed that it must be ex-
tended to them (see Grot. and Whitby); and indeed
in the case of election of Bishops examination pre-

* In which view I would compare Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 8, καὶ τὸν
οἶνον ἐναντιοῦσθαι τοῦ τῇ τοῦ νοῦ συστάσει, διαθολοῦντα τὸν ἐν τῇ
ψυχῇ αἰθέρα, and Ηογαΐ. : affigit humo divine particulam aure.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III, 239

ceded election. On the nature of this δοκιμασία the
Commentators are not agreed. The antients and
some moderns understand by it, in both cases, trying
the candidates some time before as private Chris-
tians. ‘The most eminent moderns think it respects
the examination into their character and conduct
previous to the election; which seems the best
founded interpretation, and includes the other.
Both are equally supported by the usus loquendi.
This antient custom Grot. has learnedly illustrated
both from Ecclesiastical History, and from the cus-
tom of the Rabbins, nay, also of the Greeks.

The ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες answers to the καλὴν μαρτυρίαν
ἔχοντες at ver. 7. Who are to exercise the δοκιμασία
we are not told. The congregation perhaps partici-
pated in the proceedings: but the appointment, no
doubt, rested solely with the Bishop and Presbyters.
See Bingham’s Eccl. Antiq.

11. γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνὰς. On what we are to
understand by the γυναῖκες Commentators are not
agreed. Most modern ones think the wives of the
Deacons are meant. But to this it is, with reason,
objected, that if so, it is strange nothing should have
been said of the duties of Bishop's wives, which
were of yet greater consequence. I therefore agree
with the antients and, of the moderns, Menoch.,
Grot., Benson, Hardy, Mackn., Valpy, &c., that we
are here to understand Deaconesses ; an order men-
tioned at Rom. 16,1. and (as Theoph. observes) very
useful and necessary to the Church. ‘ If (adds he)
these were not meant, why should any mention have
been introduced of women amongst what was said of
Deacons?” Besides, I would add, the very epithets
σεμνὰς, νηφαλίους, fy διαβόλους, and πιστοὺς (two of
which are applied to the Bishops (seem far more
suitable to the Deaconesses than Deacon's wives.
Assuredly the usus loquendi permits the word to be
taken as well of women (i.e. Deaconesses) as wives.
And the argument, that “ thus the Apostle would

240 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

have expressed his meaning more clearly,” is in a
writer like St. Paul of little weight. Others object,
that these are mentioned at ch. 5. But they are
there only alluded to. And surely in a question like
this the united voice of early antiquity, founded on
tradition, or antient written information unknown to
us, carries with it authority which it were unwise to
reject. At the same time it is probable that the
Deaconesses were sometimes Deacon’s wives.

On ver. 12. see supra ver. 2 & 4.

18. οἱ yap καλῶς διακονήσαντες--- Ἰησοῦ, For those
who have well discharged the office of Deacons,
gain (thereby) an honorable step to further promo-
tion, namely, to the office of Presbyter, or Bishop.
Theophyl. explains βαθμὸν by προκοπὴν. And so
almost all Commentators, antient and modern.
This interpretation is supported by a passage of
Clem. Const., cited by Grot., and also Const. Apost.
8, 18, 22., cited by Benson, and Lightf. in loc.
Hence, Grot. observes, it appears that some duties
in the ministry of the word were committed to the
Deacons, and that they were not confined to the
office of serving tables. ‘Theodoret, however, and
Heinr., understand the βαθμ. of advancement and
furtherance in the attainment of salvation. But that
seems harsh.

The words καὶ roxrnv—yood are exegetical of the
preceding. But the whole is worded delicately, and
therefore obscurely.

14, 15. The sense is uncertain from brevity.
ἜἘλπίϑων must be resolved into καίπερ éarigw; and
at ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω there is an ellipsis for γράφω δὲ ὅτι
ἐὰν βραδύνω ive εἰδῆς. And this is supported by the
authority of Theophyl., who renders: ‘* These things
I write, not as if I should never come again, but
that, in case I tarry long, thou,” &Xc.

᾿Αναστρέφεσθαι, conduct oneself.” The expression
οἴκω Θεοῦ must be closely united with ἥτις ἐστιν ἐκ-
κλησία ; being exegetical of the former metaphor,

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Ill. 241

by which the Church is compared to the Temple of
Jerusalem. See Eph. 2, 21. seqq. and the note.
Ζώντος, living, true.
/ », ee ss. , “ ᾽ ’
15. στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας.

There has been no little disputation among the modern Interpre-
ters on the punctuation of this passage. Most of them connect the
words with the preceding ; as do also the antients. Nay, Ocumen.
makes the division of the chapters here. Many, however, and most re-
cent Commentators, connect them with the following. But the sense
yielded by the antient punctuation is better ; and it is surprising that
any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature,
could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the
latter method, by which, too, the sentiment seems overloaded ;
whereas, if it be united with the preceding, it arises naturally out of
the preceding metaphor, though it may be something of a catachresis
by so sudden a change of its application. In such a case it were,
(to say no more) a want of taste and judgment to seek refinements
when the sense is clear. See Bp. Van Mildert’s note ap. D’Oyley,
who also observes that this application of the words best accords
with the context, and is liable to no serious objections ; for in no
other way can the passage be so easily and consistently explained.
] would add, that to any one who had experience in Greek con-
struction, it must appear that καὶ before ὁμολ. has the inchoative
force; for to take it asa mere copula would be harsh: and there is
something very harsh and frigid in supposing καὶ ὁμολογουμένως
μέγα introduced after στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας. It flags
and drops; whereas, in so spirited a writer as St. Paul, we may
usually in such cases perceive a climax. 1 must therefore acquiesce
in the common interpretation of these words.

As to referring the στύλος---ἀληθείας to Timothy; as did Chil
lingworth, J. H. Maius, and others ap. Wolf, and also Benson and
Slade, that can on no account be admitted. The construction
would be unprecedented ; there would be a very harsh hyperbaton ;
and a ov would have been required before εἰδῇς, and ὧν after
στύλος. And thougin (as Mr. Slade observes) James, Peter, and
John are, at Gal. 2, 19., called pillars; yet there nothing more is
added ; nor are they called ἐδραιώματα τῆς ἀληθείας ; which would
(1 think) be incongruous. Besides, admitting that both words are
applicable to such illustrious Apostles, 1 should be slow in believing
that St. Paul would apply such magnificent terms to Timothy, only
a young minister, much less an Apostle. And there is something
very harsh in the sense that thus arises, namely, ‘ ‘This [ have writ-
ten to thee, who art a pillar and foundation of the truth, in order
that thou mightest know how thou shouldst conduct thyself in the
Church of God.” Which involves a manifest incongruity. So that
the words of Benson, that St. Paul has often had very loose and
absurd interpreters; but he himself never wrote carelessly or ab-
surdly—will turn against himself. Finally, as in the other nouns of
the sentence (as οἴκῳ and ἐκκλησία) the article is left to be supplied,

VOL. VIII. : R

242 — 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 111.

so must it here. But, if so, the terms cannot be applicable to. Ti-
mothy, nay, not eyen to Paul himself: and thus the words can only
be applied to the preceding. As to Benson’s subtleties, they will
pass for nothing.

16. καὶ ὁμολογουμένως---μυστήριον. It is well ob-
served by Heinr. ; ‘* Praefatiuncula indicetur gravi-
tas et auctoritas ejus effati, quod jam esset propo-
nendum, animique ea quam attentissimé excitentur,
ut Cap. 1, 15. 3,1. 2 Tim. 2,19. Heb. 8.1. * Se-
quitur effatum ipsum sublimiore et feré poetica
dictione, quali uti solet Apostolus in doxologiis,
prolatum.”

The connection, which has not been well diseerned by the Com-
mentators, seems to be this: ‘‘ And great is the dignity and im-
portance of the Church universal, as being the depository of the fun-
damental truths of the Gospel, of which we may undoubtedly say: —
«« Great is the mystery of godliness ; and it is this that,” ἃς. Such
(1 must maintain) is the most natural interpretation of this pas-
sage ; though I readily admit its great difficulty, and can easily ac-
count for the various opinions which have been entertained by Com-
mentators. As tothe question respecting the various readings ὅς
and ὅ, I cannot enter into the multiplicity of discussions connected
with it. Suffice it to say that, after a careful examination of the
evidence, it appears to me that those readings (which are, moreover,
found in very few MSS.}, seem to be alterations introduced in order
to remove the difficulty occasioned by the extreme abruptness at
μυστήριον, which, however, is quite consistent with the style of St.
Paul. ‘The ὅς is found especially in such MSS. as have been tam-
pered with; though so great seemed the difficulty of the common
reading, that it is probable many Scribes adopted the emendation, or
noted it in the margin. And this may account for the passage having
been so seldom employed by the antient Fathers, in their arguments
with the Pelagians and Arians ; namely, because they were unwilling
to appeal to a text where the opponent might seek covert under a
diversity of reading, or a difficulty of construction. As to the reading
ds ἐφανερώθη, we may safely maintain that it is not Greek, at least,
in the sense which the espousers of that reading lay down, namely :
«© He who was manifested,” &c.: though 1 am not prepared to say,
with Nolan, that we should then have had gavepwOeis. (See his re-
marks on this text, in his excellent treatise on the integrity of the
Greck Vulg.) The only construction permitted by the propriety of
language would be that of referring it to Θεοῦ Carros, as antece-
dent, thus regarding the words στύλος--- μυστήριον as closely con-
nected and parenthetical. But this would be very harsh: though
even then it would equally prove the doctrine of the incarnate Deity.*

* In which view I would adduce the remarkable words of
Schoettg.: ‘‘ Verba hee ab Apostolo ideo proferuntur, ut ipsum

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. IV. 243

It ought to be sufficient, then, to determine us to retain the common
reading, that the other is not Greek, in the sense contended for
(and, therefore, no MSS. or Versions could justify it); and that
the interpretation in question is supported by the most illustrious
of the Greek Fathers, all the Greek Commentators and Scholiasts,
and by alinost all the antients, by whom φανεροῦσθαι ἐν σαρκὶ is
considered as applied to Christ in allusion to the miraculous and
mysterious union of the Divine and human natures. And thus
applied, i. 6. to Christ (and not, as some maintain, to the Gospel),
each of the following clauses has a definite and appropriate meaning
and force. For (to use the words of Whitby, which are sufficiently
exact to render any minute Critical examination of the phraseology
unnecessary ) Ist., He was God in the flesh, Joh. 3, 5., Phil. 2, 6 & 7.
2dly., He was justified by the Spirit (ἐν πνεύματι, by the influence
or effusion of the Spirit), himself working miracles thereby, and his
Apostles after him. Matt. 12, 28., Rom. 1, 3., Acts 2,33. 3dly.,
He was seen by Angels, Heb. 1, 6., Luke 2, 9 ἃ 13., Matt. 4, 11,,
Luke 22, 43., 24, 4. Acts 1,10, 4thly., Ihe whole history of the
Gospel shows that he was preached unto the Gentiles, and_ believed
on in the world. 5thly., He was received up into. Heaven. Matt.
16., 19., Luke 24, 51., Acts 1,2 ἃ 1].

See also the admirable expositions of this passage by Bp. Pearson
and Hurd, ap. D’Oyley and Mant, which render any further observa-
tions of my own superfluous ; and I will only notice that the exposi-
tion thus laid down by the above illustrious /rio of Theologians is, in
every part, supported by the authority of the Greek Fathers and Com-
mentators.

The ἀγγέλοις, Benson and Mack. would understand of the
Apostles. But that yields a very harsh sense, and, moreover,
requires the article. Innovations in interpretation on slight grounds
ought ever to be discouraged.

CHAP. IV.

Here there is the usual complaint, of the division
of the chapter having been introduced at an im-
proper place. But I can hardly think it well founded
in the present instance; and the division in question
is defended by the authority of Chrys., who com-
mences anew Homily here. That proposed by the
Commentators is, however, supported by the autho-

doceat, quemnam articulum precipue urgere debeat (vide v. 15.),
nimirum illum, qui de Christo agit, θεανθρώπῳ ; quem Judei non
voluerunt agnoscere.”

R2

Q44: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

rity of Gicumen., who commences the new Chapter
at καὶ ὀμολογουμένως, &c.

Verse 1. τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει. The connec-

tion seems to be this: “Such, then, are the im-
portant doctrines which compose the great mystery
of godliness, worthy of being ever remembered, and
strenuously maintained (and especially now), since
the Spirit speaketh expressly, &c. By the πνεῦμα
some understand the Spirit, as exerted in the
Prophets of the Old Testament: and Middleton and
Benson think there is a reference to Dan. 11, 36—39.
But that has been by most Commentators thought
doubtful: and they refer it tothe Apostle himself;
and Benson supposes an immediate revelation.
Certainly this is very suitable to the modesty of
the Apostle: but it seems safer to extend it to the
prophetic spirit, as imparted not only to Paul, but to
others of the Apostles. So important a piece of in-
formation might very well be communicated to
several.
1. ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, 1. 6. not the last times, but
the latter times, namely, those subsequent, and that
were to come after (and perhaps long after) the
Apostolic age : for of that circumstance the Apostle
was probably not informed. This sense of ὕστερ.
kop. is frequent in the best writers, as Thucyd.,
Herodot., Plato, and others.

Tives, some. How many, and in what proportion,
it is not said; but the expression must, consistently
with the usage of the best writers, signify a very
considerable part. On the sects against whom the
words are levelled, the Commentators are not agreed.
Ina work of this kind such discussions would be out
of place; and, therefore, I must refer the reader to
the best English Commentators, especially Mede,
Bp. Newton, Whitby, Mackn., Benson, and others.

l. προσέχοντες πνεύμασι πλάνοις, καὶ διδασκαλίαις
δαιμονίων. ‘Lhe best Commentators are agreed that
by πνεύμασι πλάνοις are to be understood false
teachers, impostors, who arrogated to themselves the

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 245

Spirit ; as 1 Cor., 12, 10. Πλάνοις is, by most Com-
mentators, regarded as a substantive put adjectively
(for as to the reading πλάνης, it savours of gloss, or
arose from the itacism); and they adduce examples
of the adjectival use from Menander and other
writers. I cannot but suspect that such was. its
original use, and that, like multitudes of other adjec-
tives, it became a substantive, by the omission of the
noun ἄνθρωπος. By διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων most
modern Commentators understand doctrines con-
cerning devils, or demons. It seems agreeable to
the natural import of the words to take it, with the
antients, and some moderns, of doctrines dictated by,
and disseminated under, diabolical influence. So
Theodoret : ᾿Εκείνων yap ἀληθῶς κυήματα ἐκεῖνα τὰ
ῥήματα. Or, with others, the genitive may be taken
for the cognate adjective, devilish, improus. See 1
Cor., 11, 15.

Q. ἐν ὑπόκρίσει ψευδολόγων. The terms, Heinr. ob-
serves, are clear; but the construction dubious.
Hence the variety of opinions. Some, as Beza,
fancy an antiptosis for Ψευδολόγοις. Rosenm. renders,
“< propter simulationem falsorum doctorum.” Others
refer the Genitives to δαιμονίων. Heinr. thinks that
προσέχοντες is to be repeated, or ὄντες to be supplied
before ἐν ὑπ. ; q. d. ὄντες ψευδολόγοι ἐν (συν) ὑποκρίσει
(i. 6. καὶ ὑποκριταὶ) κεκαυτηριασμιένοι «1. 6. ὑποκριταὶ (καὶ
ὅμως) Ψευδολόγοι. On the persons here meant see
Mackn. and Slade.

2. κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν. Here is
another of the numerous points on which Commen-
tators are at issue. Most explain it of those who
suffer under the pangs of a self-reproving conscience;
καυτήριον being the brand with which criminals were
marked, and who then might be supposed to have
cast off all shame. The expression has, therefore,
been supposed to denote self-convicted offenders :
and this is supported by the authority of Chrys.,
Theophyl., and Qéicumen. Others, however, as
many eminent moderns, think that it is derived from

246 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

the mode adopted by surgeons, of cauterizing, or
searing, by which the part is rendered insensible to
all feeling. So our English Translators, Beza, Pisc.,
Menoch., Schegel, Doddr., Mackn., Reitz on Lucian,
1, 645., Schleus., Slade, and Valpy. And this is
supported by Theodoret: ὁ yap τοῦ καυτῆρος τόπος
ψεκρωθεὶς τὴν προτέραν αἴσθησιν ἀποβάλλει. So the
Scholiasts. And, upon the whole, this appears to be
the most agreeable to the context; though I am
aware that minute exceptions may be taken against
it. I would here compare Eph. 4, 19., olrives ἀπηλγη-
TOTES, ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ : and also Zonar.
Lex. 1566., τὸ πεπωρωμένον ἔχειν τὸν νοῦν.

8. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων. It is
well observed by Theodoret: οὕτως αὐτῶν τὴν διαφθο-
ρὰν τῶν δογμάτων δηλώσας, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων νομίμων τὴν
βδελυρίαν προλέγει. The forbidding to marry is, by
some, thought to refer to the Essenes ; by others, to
the Roman Catholics. But it comes to the same
thing ; since many of the Romish superstitions were
derived from the Essenes, who borrowed them from
the East, where, as in a fruitful soil, Monkery and
unnatural celibacy, with its odious train of vices,
have ever thriven, as in a hot bed. See Mackn.

The peculiar idiom (called Synesis) at ἀπέχεσθαι
βρωμάτων contains an ellipsis deserving of especial
attention, which most Commentators supply by
κελευόντων, ΟΥ ποιούντων (with the Syr.); and they
compare 1 Cor., 14, 34., οὐ yap ἐπιτέτραπται αὐταῖς
λαλεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποτάσσεσθαι, where see the note.
Rosenm. compares Phoedr.: “non veto dimitti,”
vertm cruciari fame. And Heinrichs, Thucyd. 7,
36.,and Plin. H. N. 25, 5. Perhaps it might be
best to compare this with those passages where, in
the first clause, comes a verbum imperandi, with a
negative ; and in the second, the verb is to be
repeated, without the negative. Now here the κω-
λύω includes within itself both: yet, in the second
clause, a verbum imperandi is to be repeated, as in

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 247

the former case. So that there is also a kind of κατὰ
τὸ σημαινόμενον.

Βρωμ.. is rightly rendered meafs, in our common
acceptation; since it was animal food that was
especially forbidden. See the note on Acts 2, 44. “A
ὁ Θεὸς ἔκισεν εἰς, ὥς. This ought to be rendered :
“ though God hath created, caused them to exist.”
Eis μετάληψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, ‘for a thankful par-
ticipation;” i.e. to be thankfully participated in,
and enjoyed. Τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
‘“‘ by faithful and well instructed Christians.” It is
evident how this implies an obligation in those who
partake of the bounty of God to return thanks to the
giver; and, surely, such as habitually neglect this
thanksgiving cannot be reckoned among those who
know the truth, or obey it. Theodoret well para-
phrases: Μυσαρὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸν γάμων, καὶ τῶν βρωμάτων
τὰ πλεῖστα ἀποκαλοῦσιν, ἵνα τὸν τοιούτων δημιουργὸν
ἐνυβρίσωσι" ταῦτα μέντοι πεποίηκεν εἰς ἀπόλαυσον, ὥστε
πρόφασιν ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς μεταλαμβάνοντας εἰς εὐχαριστίαν
λαμβάνειν, καὶ χορηγὸν ἀνυμνεῖν.

4, ὅ. ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλὸν. These words are,
as it were, exegetical of the preceding ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν
ἀλήθειαν, ** who know (I say). [av κτίσμα, “every
thing created and supplied by God is good and fit
to be eaten.” Kat οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον, ‘and no (created
thing) is to be rejected,” i.e. ἀποβαλῆς ἄξιον. Of
this use of ἀποβλ. Wets. adduces examples. Ro-
senm compares Gen. 1, 30. Rom. 14, 6. and 1 Cor.
10, 30. Mera εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμιενον, “if it be
taken with thankfulness.”

5. ἁγιάϑεται yap διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως. These
words do not so much give a reason (as the Com-
mentators suppose) for the preceding, as they limit
the foregoing position, and show that every κτίσμα
Θεοῦ may become καλὸν (for that is the sense of
ἁγιάξεται), namely, if it be partaken and enjoyed,
διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ και ἐντεύξεως, “in conjunction with,
preceded by the use of,” &c. The διὰ λόγου is ex-
plained by Vorst., Dan., Grot., Hamm., Scult, and

248 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

almost all recent Commentators explain, “ by the
Gospel, which declares no meat impure.” (See Acts
10, 15. and Rom. 14,14.) And this may be the
sense; but itis harsh thus to take διὰ here in a dif-
ferent signification; and I therefore prefer (with the
antients and some moderns, especially Heinr.) to
take it of “the word of man spoken in honour of
God ;” and thus there will be an: hendiadis. So
Cicumen. 231 Cc. Or εὐχῆς πρωθύστερον δὲ κεῖται" διὰ
γὰρ λόγου καὶ ἐντεύξεως τῆς πρὸς θεὸν γινομένης. Theo-
phyl.: σφράγισον (i conjecture σφάγισον) εὐχαρίο-
TIT, δόξασον τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἀποπίπτει τ j ἀκαθαρσία. ‘H
μὲν γὰς εὐχαριστία, πάντα καθαρίϑει" ὃ ἀχάριστος δὲ καὶ
αὐτός ἀκαθάρτος καὶ μιαρίς. And ‘Theodoret: τὸ φύσει
καλὸν μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ μνήμη
καὶ ἅγιον ἀποφαίνεται. What, then, must we think
of those Christian heathens who neglect this ἱατρεία ὃ

6. ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς. By the ταῦτα
is meant not only what just preceded, but also what
was mentioned at c. 3. Perhaps, too, ταῦτα carries
with it, as in the Classical writers, the notion of
τοιαῦτα. The term vror:§., which properly signifies
submonere, is very appropriate to that mildness and
delicacy in inculcating Christian truth.so becoming
a minister of the Gospel. Thus Theophyl. observes,
that the Apostle does not say ἐπιτάττων. See
Schleus. Lex.”Eon, “ thou wilt be.” ᾿Εντρεφόμενος
τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως---διὸ, ‘There seems to be an
ellipsis, which may be thus supplied: ‘(and this
may be expected of you) who have been nourished
up in the words,’”’ ἄς. A Classical phrase with
which Wets. compares Vellej. Paterc. 2, 94. Innu-
tritus coelestium preceptorum disciplinis. And Se-
neca ad Polyb. 21. liberalibus disciplinis innutritus.
See also Loesn. Ἢ παρηκολούθηκοις, which thou hast
followed up, learned, and professed.” The word,
Rosenm. observes, is so used in Plato. And so
2 Tim. 3, 10. See the note on Luke 1, 3. rag’ ἄνω-
bev πάσιν ἀκριβῶς.

7. τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ,

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. ἵν. 24.9

“ Reject the superstitious fables, whether of Jews
or Gentiles.” This sense of παριτ. for αἀποστρέφεσαι
is found in the best writers. By the βεβήλους the
Apostle is thought to have reference to the fables
of the people; and by the γραώδεις, to those of the
Rabbins ; which, indeed, if we may judge by the
specimens found in them, deserve the name. Not
but that they would be applicable to the heathen
superstitions ; but they both seem to have reference
to Jewish superstitions ; and the βεβ. may advert to
some that were especially akin to the Pagan ones,
and introduced from them, probably those of the
Essenes ; though that is uncertain. See the Com-
mentators, who, however, rise no higher than con-
jecture. The name pv9. denotes the falsity and
vanity of these superstitions.

Ot the latter expression Wets. adduces an eX-
ample from Strabo, 1. p. 32. ‘A τὴν ποιητικὴν γραώδη
μυθολογίαν ἀποφαίνων. I add Jambl. de V. Pyth.
γραώδεσιν ὑποθήκαις. On the sentiment 1 would com-
pare Phil. Jud. 182 ο. τῇ δὲ Θεοῦ θεραπευτῇ πρεπωδὲς
ἀληθείας περιέχεσθαι τὴν ἀβέβαιον μυθοποίαν χαίρειν
εἴποντι.

7. γύμναξε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. This is reck-
oned among the agonistical metaphors. Rosenm.
compares Arrian 3, 22, πρὸς ἀρετὰς γυμνάϑεσθαι. To
which I add Max. ‘Tyr. D. 31, 6.11, 110. τοιοῦτος
ἐξ ἀγαθῆς παλαίστρας ἀγωνιστὴς γίνεται, λόγων μεστὸ ς
ἀκολακεύτων καὶ ἡσχημένων ὑγυιώς, καὶ δυναμένων a ἄγειν
πειθοῖ καὶ βίᾳ ἐκ πληκτικῇ τὸ πγησιάϑον πᾶν. The sen-
tence is elliptical, and may be rendered: ‘‘ examine
thyself as to what Tegards virtue and piety.”

8. ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστιν ὠφέλιμος.
On the sense of the σωματικὴ γυμνασία, Commen-
tators are divided in opinion; some understanding
it literally of gymmastic exercises just mentioned.*

* So Wets., who paraphrases: ‘ Alii in pueritid fabulas aniles
libenter audiunt: tu, clm puer esses, verbis fidei innutritus €S5
quanto magis te nunc pueritid egressum illas fabulas aspernari

250 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

Others think that the Apostle adverts to the ex-
ercising of the body by refraining from meat, wine,
marriage, &c. Rosenm. is of opinion that both may
be understood; namely, that exercising which
centers in the body, as opposed to the cultivation
of the mind and soul. At ὀλίγον must be understood
χρόνον : and this suits the frst mentioned interpre-
tation. If the second be adopted, the πρὸς oaiyay
may be taken as an adverbial phrase, and signify
little.

8. ἡ δὲ εὐσεβεία----μελλούσης. By ἡ εὐσεβεία is meant
true Christian piety, as opposed to the profane
superstitions just mentioned. Πρὸς πάντα may be
taken with the same latitude of signification as πρὸς
ὀλίγον, and mean, “ at all times, and in all places and
circumstances. ᾿Επαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ϑωῆς, &c. A
somewhat unusual and refined sort of expression,
signifying, ‘having in its power a promise (i. 6. of
happiness) respecting this life,” &c. For truly Chris-
tian piety, which affects not needless mortifications,
as it were, promises and confers those blessings, of
which it does not, like superstition, deprive its vo-
taries. What these are, is obvious; namely, calm-
ness and tranquillity of mind, even that peace of
God which passeth all understanding, an_ enjoy-
ment of all the innocent pleasures of life, and a hope
full of immortality. On the sentiment Rosenm.
compares Seneca Ep. 79.; and Wets., Aboth 4, 6.
Magna est lex, que dat vitam facientibus ipsam in
seculo preesenti, et in seculo futuro.

9. Πιστὸὺς---ἀξιος. On this formula see the note
on 1, 15. It is doubted whether it ought to be re-
ferred to the preceding, or to the following. The

decet? Adolescentes solent corpus exercere; at ego tibi adoles-
centi studium longé prestantius commendo: meditare doctrinam
Evangelii, coerce corpus tuum ejusque appetitus, preepara te futuris
casibus, mentem excole,” Rosenm. compares Pythag. ap, Stob.
Serm. 1. ἰσχύειν τῇ ψυχῇ μᾶλλον ἤ τῷ σώματι αἱροῦ. I add Diog.
Daert. 1, 56. ἀθληταὶ δὲ καὶ ἀσκούμενοι, πολυδάπανοι καὶ νικῶντες
ἐπιξημίοι. i

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 251

former opinion (which is supported by the antients
and most moderns) seems preferable. ‘* Without
(says Benson) these three grand principles, a God, a
providence, and a future state, religion could not
subsist. And the Apostle, in the next verse, plainly
intimates that these were his support under afflic-
tions, as well as animated him to zeal and diligence
in active service.”

10. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ---Θεώ ϑώντι, “ΤῸ this end we
both labour and suffer persecution and insult.” The
var. lect. ἀγωνιδόμεθα is evidently ex emendatione.
Ἠλπίκαμεν, “ have hoped and do hope.” Or it is
used, like the aorist, of that which is customary, and
habitual. Rosenm. well paraphrases: ‘ Ideo labo-
ribus maceror, obloquiis et conviviis laceror, quia in
Deo confido, nimirum, vite hujus mez perpessitie
in illa altera rationem ab eo habitum iri.” Cicero
(he adds) thought for the mere acquiring of a death-
less name (than which he accounted nothing greater
or more desirable) labours were to be endured.
And he cites Cic. Cat. Maj. Quis tantos labores
diurnos nocturnosque domi militizque susciperet, si
iisdem finibus gloriam quibus vitam esset termina-
turos? which possibly Milton had in view in the
celebrated passage of Lycidas:

““ Fame is the spur that the clear sp’rit doth raise
To scorn delights, and live laborious days.”

10. ὅς ἐστι σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων. This is well
explained by Theophyl., “ would have all men be
saved ;” and by Benson, “is disposed to be the
Saviour,’ &c. See the note supral,1. By πιστ.
is, of course, meant Christians. Wets. compares a
sentiment of Hierocl.: ἐστι μὲν δημιουργὸς πάντων,
τῶν δὲ ἀγαθών Kol πατὴρ---μισεῖ μιὲν οὐδένα ἀνθρώπων,
τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν διαφερόντας ἀσπάϑεται" and Plut. Alex.
Ρ- 683 a. καὶ λέγειν, wis πάντων μὲν ὄντα κοινὸν ἀνθρώ-
πων πατέρα. τὸν θεὸν, ἰδίους δὲ ποιούμενον ἑαυτῷ τοῦς
φατε SN 7 ~ , , e 7,

» μηθεὶς σου τῆς νεύτητος καταφρονείτω---ἀγνείᾳ.

952 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

Considering the force of the second clause ἀλλὰ--
ἐν λόγῳ, &c., it is plain that we must interpret this:
*“ Let no one have reason to despise,” &c. ᾿Αλλὰ
may be rendered “but (in order thereto).” ‘The
verb to despise, followed by different nouns, as de-
spise one’s youth (i. 6. despise one on account of
one’s youth), one’s number, one’s want of strength,
&c. is not unfrequent in the Classical writers, from
whom examples are cited by Wets. Ἔν λόγω, in
speech (so Theophyl.); or, as some explain, teaching.
Compare 5,17. Ἔν ἀναστροφῇ, conduct, behaviour.
« ‘Thus (paraphrases Heinr.) exemplifying your doc-
trines by your conduct.”

So far all is clear. But on the words following
there is a difference of opinion. ’Ev ἀγάπη must not
(with Heinr.) be united with the former, so as to
torm an hendiadis; but rather taken independently.
For the four following particulars seem intended as
exemplifications of the general term ἐν ἀναστροφῇ :
and I cannot but censure the slovenly mode in which
many eminent Commentators (see Benson and
Heinr.) huddle up the terms of this sentence. ᾿Εν
ἀγάπῃ is well explained by the antients, love to all
men, whether Christians or not. ‘The next particu-
lar, ἐν πνεύματι, is omitted in a few antient MSS. and
Versions, and is cancelled by Griesb.; but very
rashly and uncritically ; since no good reason can
be assigned for its insertion, but many for
its omission (especially in MSS. like those,
which have been tampered with), namely, from
the acknowledged difficulty; for such there is,
otherwise the Commentators would not have inter-
preted so variously; some understanding it of the
spiritual gifts ; others, of the temper and disposition.
Yet as the antients (I find) universally explained it
as having a reference to the Holy Spirit, so the cor-
rectors of the above MSS. saw not how it could have
place among the duties of common life: for so many
Commentators, antient and modern, seem to think.
It must, however, I think, mean, “in a spiritual

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 253

frame or temper.” So Theophyl.: ἐν τῇ πνευματικῇ
καταστάσει.

The πίστις cannot properly be regarded as having
place among the duties of common life, unless it be
interpreted (with Rosenm.) fidelity. But that sense
is too precarious to be depended on: and I must
equally censure the rashness of both correctors and
interpreters on this passage, which being expressed
popularly, must not be bound down to the rules of
regular composition. Considering the context, it
mist be interpreted of faith, not as regards the in-
ternal feelings, but the outward profession of an
undoubting confidence in God.

᾿Αγνεία must refer to moral purity and chastity in
general.

13. ἕως ἔρχομαι, i. 6. “till I come mind these
maxims, and then I will instruct you farther.” (So
Theophyl.) This is a popular expression, and must
not be pressed on.

13. πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει.

Almost all the Commentators interpret this of reading the Scrip-
tures, 1, e. as far as they were then promulgated, namely, the Old
Testament, (see 2 Tim. 3, 15 ἃ 16), called "tpn. And some
think these are meant to be contrasted with the ἘΠῚ or, at least,
unauthorized traditions of the Rabbis. But although the Apostle
may be presumed to have intended especially to recommend the
study of the Old Testament, yet I apprehend that he also has in
view such reading or study in general as would contribute to the
better wndersianding of the Scriptures, and the fitting Timothy for
the exercise of teaching and preaching among the enlightened
Gentiles. It is strange that so few Commentators should have
seen this, among whom is Theodoret* and the judicious Doddr.,
and, in some measure, Benson. J am happy to fortify this inter-
pretation by the authority of the learned professor Rutherforth, in
a most admirable Concio ad Clerum, intituled, De artzbus et doctri-
nis guibus Theologie studiosos erudiri oportet, which I would respect-
fully recommend to the perusal of my clerical brethren. But as it
is very scarce, I shall introduce the following important extract.
‘“* Paulus, cum Timotheo precipiat, ut magno studio in lectionem

* Whose words are these: Ἔντεῦθέν ἐστι μαθεῖν, ws καὶ ἡμᾶς
προσήκει συνεισφέρειν τὸν πόνον, καὶ οὕτω λαμβάνειν τὴν “Χάριν
τοῦ Πνεύματος" καὶ γὰρ τῷ τρισμκαρὶῳ Τιμοθέῳ πνευματικῶ ὄντι τῇ
ἀναγνώσει προσέχειν ἐκέλευσεν ὁ διδάσκαλος.

254: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

incumbat, et Petrus, cum multo intellectu difficilia in sacris libris
contineri dicat, que ab instabilibus indoctisque hominibus non
sine ipsorum exitio pervertuntur, auctoritate sud, fanaticos illos
refellunt qui neminem Christiani Theologi munus rilé exequi
posse aiunt, nisi vel nihil doctrine attigerit, vel si quam forte pue-
rili institutione adeptus fuerit, cum Omnem ex animo suo penitus
exterminaverit. Nobis autem, qui et ipsi gravissimum hoc munus
suscepimus, et in alios qui idem suscepturi eruditionis caus& huc
veniant, instituendos ac docendos curas nostras et cogitationes
conferre debemus, querendum est preterea quenam sint artium
doctrinarumque studia, que officiunt, ut, Spiritu Sancto nos adjus
vante, idonei simus Novi Feederis Ministri. Paulus precepit, ut in
quibus rerum sacrarum administratio committatur, tales sint, qui
purum sincerumque Dei verbum, prout idem didicerint, firmiter
retineant ; qui possint benevolos auditores hortari ac docere, ad-
versarios convincere, pervicaces, inaniter garrulos, fraudulentesque
homines admonere, aut, si quando opus fuerit, acriter reprehendere;
ut seipsos tales prebeant, quales Deus probabit, opifices qui nullam
habeant erubescendi causam, et qui verbum veritatis ita distribuant ; ut
denique sunt ad docendum apti, et ad illos, qui sese veritati op-
ponant, quive eam deserentes fabulos consectentur, eam comitate
et mansuetudine, quatenus res sinat, erudiendos, p.1—S. And
again, p. 11. Quamvis igitur ineptum esset, quando inter indoctos
concionamur, controversias Theologicas in orationibus nostris dis-
ceptare ; orationum tamen nostrarum, quibus vel doctos vel in-
doctes ad vere religionis scientiam erudimus, ex scriptis eorum
a quibus disceptate sunt, materiam omnem petere oportet.”

I would add, that on the utility, if not necessity, of profane lite-
rature to the formation of the Critical Interpreter of Scripture and
useful Preacher of the word, we have the united opinion of the Fa-
thers and the most eminent modern Theologians. Chrys. every
where conjoins it: and I need only advert to his celebrated Dict.
τῶν πάντων κακῶν αἴτιον μὴ ἀναγινώσκειν βίβλια, ψυχῆς φάρμακα.
And so Basil, Gr. Ναξ., Clem. Alex., Jerome, Isidor., Pelus., Phot.,
and indeed all the most eminent of the Greek Fathers. My limits
will only permit me to insert the following passage of GEcumen.
(partly from Chrys.) T.1. p. 66 Β and c., where commenting on
the passage of the Acts, in which it is said that Moses was learned in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he remarks : Ἔκ τούτου δῆλον, ὡς
οὐκ ἀποβλητέα πάντη ἐστὶν ἣ τῶν ἔξωθεν τῆς γραφῆς παίδευσις"
τρόπῳ γὰρ ἐγκωμίου εἴρηται, ὡς ἐπαιδεύθη Μωῦσῆς πάσῃ σοφίᾳ ᾿Αι-
γυπτίων, καὶ περὶ τῶν τριῶν παίδων καὶ Δανιὴλ, ὡς ὑπερέβαλλον
πάντας ἐν τῇ Χαλδαίων φιλοσοφίᾳ, καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐπιστήμαις" δεῖ
δὲ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον αὐταῖς προσέχειν, τῇ θεοπνεύστῳ γραφῇ ἐμμένοντας"
οὔτε yap Μωῦσῆς, οὔτε οἱ περὶ ᾿Ανανίαν καὶ Δανιὴλ ἔμαθον ἂν τὴν
ξένην παιδείαν, εἰ μὴ ἀνάγῃ καὶ βίᾳ δεσποτῶν" καί γὰρ ἐν οὐδενὶ
αὐτῇ κεχρῆται" εἰ μὴ που pain ἄν τις, ὅτι καλὸν αὐτὴν μαθεῖν πρὸς
τὸ ἀνατρέψαι τὰς ἐκείνων ἀπάτας. On this important subject I may
be excused for referring my readers to a Visitation Sermon (or
rather Essay, with copious notes,) published by me nearly eleven years

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 255

ago, in which is especially evinced the necessity of learning to a
Theologian, by an examination of the chief requisites for forming a
skilful Interpreter of the Sacred Writings. I would also refer my
reader to Dr. Maltby’s Serm. vol. 2, 557. and to J. H. Pareus In-
stit. Instr. Vet. Test. sub. init. p. 1. Sect. 1. De studiis, cum probabili
Veteris Testamenti interpretaiione indivulso nexu conjunctis; and
Sect. 3. De subsidiariis studiis, que ingenuum Veteris Testamenti in-
terpretem ornent et adjuvent. Nor must I omit to mention a very
acute defence of learning, &c. as necessary to a Theologian, to be
found in an Appendix to Sanctus Sancitus by Dr. Kendall, Lond,
1654. fol., intituled, ‘* An Appendix against Master Horne, goring all
University Learning.”

The Philological student will, however, bear in mind, that by read-
ing is here meant that vigorous exercise of the mind in thought
upon any subject, which can alone convert what is read to nou-
rishment. In which view I would introduce a most judicious obser-
vation from an author in whom we should little expect it, Artemid.
Onir. 1, 12. p. 1, p. 25. Ed. Reif. φημὶ δεῖν οἴκοθεν παρασκεύασθαι
καὶ οἰκείᾳ συνέσει χρῆσθαι, καὶ μὴ μόνον τοῖς βιβλίοις ἐπανέχειν-τ-ο
ἀτελὴς καὶ ἀπέραντος. Finally, in the words of the Poet, Πράμματα
μαθεῖν δεῖ, καὶ μαθόντα νοῦν ἔχειν.

18. τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ. Since the Apos-
tle puts τῇ ἀναγνώσει first, and then τῇ παρακλήσει
and τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, I think, with Heinr., that he in-
tended to represent the usefulness of the first, in
order to the more effectual production of the other
two.

14. μὴ ἀμέλει---πρεσβυτερίου. ‘The word χάρισμα
here denotes, according to its usual signification, the
New Testament, a supernatural gift of the Spirit ;
though many recent Commentators endeavour to
explain all away by lowering the sense to dotes
anim, &c. (See Noesselt Exerc. p. 80. or Rosenm.,
who faithfully details this interpretation, which he
himself adopts.) ‘Though even Benson (prone as he
is to innovation) here strenuously maintains the
former signification of χάρισμα, which he says occurs
not only in the New Testament, but the Apostolical
Fathers. (See his note.)

By the pera ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρών τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου,
I agree with Benson, we are to understand the laying
on of hands in addition to those of the Apostle. For
at 2 Tim. 1, 6. the gift is said to have been imparted
bythe laying on of the hands of Paul. Yet I cannot

256 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

agree with him that we may infer that the Elders did
not confer it. They, it should seem, contributed to
confer it; though in what proportion we are not
told; neither is it necessary for us to know. On the
rite of laying on of hands see the Commentators and
Vitringa de Synag. vet. p. 507.

15. ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, ““ἤτοο meditare, et
in his totus esto.” (Rosenm.) Both these phrases,
as used of diligent attention, and devoted care, are
found in the best Classical writers; the latter in the
Latin as well as the Greek. (See Wetstein’s exam-
ples.) The ἵνα has perhaps the eventual sense. On
the exact force of the above phrases see Benson.

15. ἐν πᾶσιν, ““ inter omnes.” Theophl. and others
interpret ‘in all things.”

16. ἔπεχε ceavtd—oov. Heinr. takes this for an
hendiadis; 4. d. ‘take heed how thou teachest.”
But this is paring down the sense. ‘The antients and
most moderns riyhtly explain the σεαυτῴ, ‘* thy own
conduct and life; and 0:3., “‘ thy doctrine.” At ἔπεχε
(like πρόσεχε) there is an ellipsis of νοῦν ; and ἐπίμενε
αὐτοῖς is rendered by Rosenm., “ his esto intentus ;”
as ἐπίστηθι at 2 Tim. 4, 2., and the ἐπίκεισο of
Heysch.

Then it is added τοῦτο yap—oov. By σώσεις, as
regards the ἀκούοντας is meant, ‘be the means of
saving them; contribute to their salvation ;” which
is all that this popular form signifies. Tor we are
not to suppose that even thus they would add ulti-
mately be saved.

CHAP. V.

Verse 1, 2. Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξης, “ Do not
roughly rebuke an elderly man.” ᾿Ιὑπιπλήσσειν sig-
nifies properly to strike upon; and is used of sharp
reproof. The Commentators compare the Horatian
patruz verbera lingua. Παρακάλει ws πατέρα, “use
exhortation such as to a father.” Agreeable to the

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 257

custom of antiquity, by which old men were treated
as fathers, of which Wets. adduces numerous exam-
ples; as Diog. Laert. Plat. 3, 95. εἰ πρὸς πρεσβυτέρους
ἁμαρτάνοντας διαλέγεται, ἁομόττοντας δεῖ λόγους as
πρεσβυτέροις διαλέγεσθαι, and Phocyl. 209. (an imita-
tion of this pseudo) : πρέσβυν ὁμήλικα πατρὸς ἴσαις τι-
μαῖςσι γέραιρε. But the Apostie skilfully engrafts on
this other corresponding directions.

2. ἐν πάση ἀγνείᾳ, 1. 6. not only with chastity, but,
as the racy implies, with every caution, so as not to
give the slightest handle for any suspicion. As
an example of νεώτερος and νεοτέρας I would refer to
Artemid. Onir. 1, 31.

3. χήρας τίμα τὰς ὄντως χήρας. The term rip. must
here be taken in a peculiar sense, i. e. not strictly, .
honour, but rather, “ give them what their rights may
claim.” Now in the present instance this must com-
prehend not only respect, but sustenance. See
Schleus. Lex. Τὰς ὄντως χήρας, “those that really
answer to that description ;”* which is further ex-
plained at ver. 5. It has not been a little debated
whether these are to be regarded as the same with
the deaconesses. ‘This would seem to be doubtful :
nor have we sufficient knowledge of the state of the
primitive Church to be able to determine the ques-
tion. See the Commentators, especially Benson and
Heinr.

4. εἰ δὲ τις χήρα---εὐσεβεῖν. The ἔκγονα may sig-
nify descendants, children, grand-children, or, as it
might happen, great-grand-children; (which in a
country where marriages are contracted so early,
would sometimes be the case even before the sixtieth
year). Μανθανέτωσαν, 501]. τὰ ταῦτα τὰ τέκνα, let
them learn ; not “ from their mother, or grand-mo-
ther” (as Heinr. explains), but “ from me who sig-

* On this sense of ὄντως, as applied to an epithet, Rosenm. cites
Hierocl. in Pyth. ὁ ὄντως πατήρ. 1 add Dionys. Hal. 1, 541, 33. ra
κοινὰ ὄντως κοινὰ, Athen. 571 Cc. τῶν ὄντως ἑταίρων, and 572, ὄντως
éraipas. τ΄ Ὶ

VOL. VIII. 5

258 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V.

nify to them the will of God.” Others, with less
probability, think there is here a transition from the
singular to the plural. It is more correct to say,
that the whole construction is popular.

Εὐσεβεῖν is said by Rosenm. to be synonymous
with ti. a little before. But there is this difference,
that as the duty towards parents is so closely con-
nected with that towards God, and so expressly
enjoined by Him, the same term εὐσεβεῖν was used
to denote both; as pius, pietas, &c. in the Latin.
Τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον is, by a delicacy of language, put for
their parents; though this is directly expressed in
the clause following, which is exegetical of the pre-
ceding.

With the duty derived from Divine sanction the
Apostle interweaves that which even human reason
and equity would teach; and this is indicated by the
καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προγόνοις, Which can require
no explanation; nor can the phrase need those nu-
merous examples so laboriously piled up by the Phi-
lological Commentators.

The πρῶτον, at which Heinr. causelessly stumbles,
hints that they are first to support those of their own
family, and afterwards those of the Christian society
at large.

5. ἡ δὲ ὄντως χήρα---ἡμέρας. The δὲ is resump-
tive; and this sentence explains what the Apostle
meant by χήρα, namely, destitute, i. 6. of husband or
children, or of any other means of support.* The
words following are meant to hint at the other qua-
lifications required, in order to entitle such an one to
the τιμὴ in question, namely, sound Christian prin-
‘ciples and belief, and a constant attendance on the
‘external observances of piety. Of the sense here of
yam. as spoken of what is habitual, there 15. δὴ exam-

* The word is by the Commentators and Lexicographers derived
‘from xfpos, and that from χηρόω. But that verb is rather a deri-
‘vative of χῆρος, which seems to come from χέω, cognate with ydw,
to gape, stand apart from, want the assistance of. So the following
μεμονωμένη. 1 would compare Eurip, Alc. 1110. χερεύεις μόνος ;

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 259

ple supra 4, 10. where see the note. After Θεὸν Theo-
phyl. and Heinr. supply μόνον.

6. 7 δὲ σπαταλῶσα, ϑώσα τέθνηκε, “But she that
liveth in luxury.” ‘That such is the sense is plain
from James 5, 5. ἐτρυφήσατε καὶ ἐσπαταλήσατε. This
verb comes from σπατάλη, which is derived from
σπάτος, the hide, or skin. Itis not, however, used
(as Schleus. says) de cutis pruritu; but there is ra-
ther a reference to currying, or taking care of the
skin or flesh; which is a metaphor denoting luxury.
So Hor. Ep. 1, 4, 15. Me pinguem et nitidum, bene
curatd -cute, vises. The Commentators compare
σπαθᾶν. See Heysch. Suic. Thes., and Loesner.

Themetaphor in the words ϑῶσα τέθνηκε is fre-
quent both in the Rabbinical and Classical writers
(especially the Philosophers), from whom Wets. ad-
duces examples; as Jalk. Rubeni, and Seneca Ep.
77. add Plutarch in frag. Stob. 35. p. 864. ὁ τῶν
ἀσώτων βίος ὥσπερ KAT ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκων ἐκφέρεται,
and Joseph. 1820, 3. ἕως δὲ εἰσὶν ἐν σώματι θνήτω δεδε-
μένω καὶ τῶν τούτου κακῶν συνοαναπίπλανται, τὸ ἀληθέοσ-
τατον εἰπεῖν τεθήκασι. See the note on Eph. 2, 1.
The sense is: “She that is such may be regarded as
spiritually dead, no longer a member of Christ’s
Church, and therefore having no claims to alms be-
stowed on poor Christians.”

8. εἰ δὲ r1s—yeigwv. The Apostle here enforces
the direction he had given at ver. 4. on the mainte-
mance of poor widows ‘by their children or grand-
children ; namely, by urging that if they do not so,
they will show less natural feeling and sense of reli-
gious obligation than the very Heathens. Heinr.
‘however, thinks that the words are said of the widows
themselves, and state the third requisite, namely, that
they have been good mothers of families. But this
is very harsh. .

At the οἰκείων many Interpreters stumble; some
rendering it, “ of the household of faith ;” and others,
as Doddr. (running into needless distinctions),
“those that reside in the same house:” and even

s2

260 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V.

Heinr. adopts this ill-founded criticism. The truth
is, that the words καὶ μάλιστα τῶν οἰκείων are exege-
tical of the τῶν ἰδίων, and denote all near relations ;
a sense frequent in the Classical writers; as ‘Thu-
eyo. ὁ, ΟἿ:

8. ἤρνηται is to be taken as an aorist, “" denteth the
faith,” i. 6. denies and rejects by his works that faith
which he professes with his lips; i. e. is guilty of
practical infidelity. Compare Tit. 1,16. So Pro-
cop. Goth. p. 336. (cited by Wets.) ὁ τῇ φύσει τὸ
πιστὸν ἔχων, οὐ ξυμμεταβάλλει τῇ τύχη τὴν γνώμην---ὖ
γὰρ τὸ τῆς διανοίας νοσῶν ἄστατον, καὶ τὴν εἰς τοὺς φιλ-
τάτους ἠρνήσατο πίστιν. Ladd Liban. Orat. 828. ὁ γὰρ
πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους πονηρὸς, οὐκ ἂν γένηται περὶ τὰ κοινὰ
βελτίων. Among the Greeks, he who refused or
neglected to do this was made ἀτίμος, and deprived
of every political franchise. By the faith is meant
the moral law adopted into the Gospel. So Is. 58,
ἡ. ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων τῶν σπέρματός Tov οὐχ ὑπερόψει.

8. καὶ ἐστιν ἀπίστου χείρων, 1. e. simply, ““ he is less
observant of the moral and relative duties than an
infidel ;” for such were little negligent of those
duties. So Tacit. (cited by Wets.) Liberos cuique
ac propinquos Natura carissimos esse voluit. See
Theophyl.

9. χήρα καταλεγέσθω. What is meant here by χήρα
the Commentators are not agreed. Some think it
denotes the Deaconesses mentioned supra, ch. 3.
(See Benson and Doddr.) Thus it would be a name
of honour. So Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. cited by Ro-
senm.: ἀσπάϑομαι τὰς παρθένους τὰς λεγομένας χήρας.
Others think that these χήραι were poor widows (pro-
perly so called) put on a list, for sustenance at the
expense of the Church. Rosenm. says, that besides
the general roll which comprehended all the Chris-
tians of any Church, there were particular ones con--
fined to the clergy, and those poorer Christians who
were maintained at the public expense, including
virgins and widows ; and of such lists the Ecclesias-
tical Canons often make mention.” The Apostle’s

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 201

meaning is obscure; yet the latter opinion seems
the more probable: and the age at which they might
be elected seems to strengthen it; for the sixtieth
year was that at which (as we learn from the Rab-
bins and Classical writers) old age was supposed to
commence. The verb ἐγκαταλέγω, which signifies
to enter upon a list, would equally suit both.*

It should seem that before the sixtieth year they
might receive casual relief, but were not put on the
list for regular maintenance. Upon the whole, how-
ever, it is impossible, without more knowledge of
the circumstances of the primitive Church, to come
to any determination of such a question.

On the sense of ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνὴ, the Commentators
are equally divided in opinion as upon the μιᾶς γυναι-
kos ἄνδρα, supra 3,2. Most explain it, ““ ἃ wife of
one husband, one who has had but one husband.”
Others, ‘‘ who has had only one husband at a time.”
Others again, ‘‘ a wife who has preserved her con-
jugal fidelity.” And so, besides some eminent mo-
derns, as Rosenm. and Doddr., Theodoret : δῆλον, ws
οὐ τὴν διγαμίαν ἐκβάλλει, ἀλλὰ TO σωφρόνως ἐν γάμῳ
βιοῦν νομοθετεῖ. But I must confess this seems not ἃ
little harsh; and the first mentioned is by far the
most natural interpretation.-

* Jaspis, who adopts the latter opinion, observes, that with this
entering upon a list was (as we learn from Jerome), in order to in some
measure compensate the Church for its bounty, conjoined an obliga-
tion to undertake certain public functions, perform business of a
lighter kind, suited to one in the decline of life. ‘ These widows
(adds he) assisted the Deaconesses properly so called, and were called
πρεσβυτίδες. (See Tit. 2,3. Theophyl. on this place calls them ras
γραίδας, and Theodoret ras yeynoaxvias.) Epiphanius expressly
distinguishes τὰς ypaorépas πρεσβυτίδας, from the common Dea-
conesses, and at the same time adds that they were χήραι.

+ Because the Latins used the word wnivira to denote a woman
who from her virginity had been married only to one man ; and be-
cause that kind of monogamy was reckoned honourable in some of
the Heathen priests and priestesses, Mackn. thinks that the cor-
ruptors of Christianity enjoined these things to Christian Bishops,
and Deacons, and widows, that they might, in the eyes of the peo-
ple, be nothing inferior to the Heathen priests and priestesses,

262 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv.

10. ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη. See the note on
8,7. The literal sense is: borne testimony to for
good works.” ’Evis for eri. ‘These good works are
then exemplified; so that εἰ may be rendered τ for
example. ‘The εἰ is, however, for ὅτι. (See Devar.
and Hoogev.) ᾿Επτεκνοτρόφησεν, brought up, edu-
cated. Now the context implies a careful, sober,
and religious education. So ‘Theophyl.: ὡς dé. See
also Theodoret. I cannot think with Heinr., that
the bearing of children is here especially insisted on,
however dishonourable sterility might be. And the
Jus trium liberorum can have no bearing on the
present case. It should rather seem that the Apos-
tle did not intend anv objection to be made to a
widow, that she had not borne children. Ei érexvo-
τροῷ. may mean, “ if she has carefully educated such
children as she has had,” whether any, or none.
And in the same manner the εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν and εἰ
θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν, may only mean, “ if she has
shown all hospitality to strangers, and rendered all
assistance to the poor, which the circumstances of
her husband and family permitted.”* On éSeved. see
the note on 3, 2. The éSevedoy. being followed by
the εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνειψεν (put exegetically) shows that
the strangers are supposed to be (as they would
usually be) Christians. |

The washing of the feet (on which see Joh. 13,
14. and the note there) is put, to denote, in a gene-
ral way, kind attention to the comfort of the guests ;
and in the East this is reckoned one of the greatest ;
and other domestic attentions, were rendered either
personally by, or under the superintendence of,

* Mackn. irrationally argues, from the expensiveness of such
hospitality and assistance, that these widows could not have done it
at their own charges, but were female Deacons employed in these
offices at the common expense; and that in chusing widows, Ti-
mothy was to prefer those who had been Deaconesses ; but this is
making confusion worse confounded. Lodging was not expensive ;
and the rest would depend upon their ability. They might, or
they might not, have been Deaconesses: but the Apostle has (I
think) reference to nothing of the sort.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 263

the wives, or other females of the family. See
Wetstein’s examples, to which I add Herodot. 6,
19, 9.

10. εἰ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν, ‘if she hath relieved
the distressed.* Of this sense of ἐπαρκέω many ex-
amples are adduced by Wets. Θλιβομένοις, distressed.
See Bp. Pearson’s notes to Ignat. Epist. p. 17.

The Apostle then (Theodoret observes), συλλήβδην
ἅπαντα τῆς ἀρετῆς εἶπε τὰ εἴδ. sums up the whole, by
the words ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῴ ἐπηκολούθησε, where
ἐπηκ. 15. very significant, and denotes, “ followed up,
and lost no opportunity of performing.” So διώκειν,
1 Thess. 5, 15. and Heb. 12, 14.

Ll. Newrégas δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ, ““Ὀπί the younger
ones reject (as applicants to be put upon this list).”
In the next words ὅταν yap καταστρηνιάσωσι τοῦ Xpic-
τοῦ, γαμεῖν θέλουσιν, the phraseology is very brief and
obscure. Heinr. regards the words as an inversion,
for ὅταν γὰρ γαμεῖν θέλουσιν, καταστρηνιάξϑουσιν κατὰ τοῦ
X.; which may be true; but something is required to
be supplied; thus: ‘‘ For being restrained from mar-
rying again, and sometimes having a wish so to do,
they are apt to kick at the restraints of the Christian
faith, and take a second spouse.” It should seem
that these χήραι engaged themselves to the perform-
ance of certain duties inconsistent with a married
state, and that a promise (or vow) of remaining single
was expected of them, on being entered on the list.

The term καταστρην. is variously explained. By
some (as Schleus., in his Lexicon), “ to live luxuri-
ously on the alms of the Church.” But this seems
neglecting the sense of κατὰ. I see no reason to
abandon the common interpretation, supported by
the antients and most moderns, and which is well
expressed by Heinr. thus: “ pra nimia luxuria et

* Theoph. explains, “‘ by money, patronage, and intercession.”
And Theodoret observes: Ov τὴν ποσότητα τῆς χορηγίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς
γνώμης Snret τὴν ποιότητα" τοιαῦτα ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς εὐαγγελίοις
χήρας τὰ δύο λεπτά.

204 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv.

opum affluentia insultare Christo et ejus religioni,”
i. 6. swell against, rebel, and kick against. Compare
1 Sam. 2, 29. and Deut. 32, 15. which St. Paul
seems to have had in view. ‘The word comes from
στρηνὴς, which signifies stiff, starch, rough, (whence
strenuus,) also swelling, rebellious.

12. ἔχουσαι κρίμοι ὅτι τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν.
On the sense of these words the Commentators are
at issue. Many recent ones think that ἠθέτησαν τὴν
πρώτην πίστιν denotes, “ cast off the Christian faith ;”
and they render κρίμα condemnation. This interpre-
tation, indeed, the expression might well bear; but
it is very harsh: for nothing has been said about
their having abandoned the religion, except that
some fancy that the marriage could only be with
a Heathen husband; which seems an unfounded
fancy. ‘The most rational interpretation seems to be
that of the antients, and some eminent moderns, who
explain, “‘ to the breaking of their promise, or vow
of remaining unmarried.” And thus ἔχουσαι κρίμα
will signify, ‘incurring condemnation.” ‘This sense
of πίστις is of perpetual occurrence: and thus πρώ-
τὴν admits of an apter sense than on the new inter-
pretation. See Chrys., Theophyl., Gicumen., Theo-
doret, Scult, Camer., and others. It is plain, how-
ever, that κρίμα must here be taken in the sense con-
demnation ; q.d. ‘‘ they will commit a great sin by
breaking so solemn a vow.” *

13. ἅμα δὲ Kal apyal μανθάνουσι περιερχόμεναι τὰς
οἰκίας. ‘The Apostle means to say, that with the
younger widows this maintenance at the public ex-
pence will engender the vices which idleness ever
produces in those who are able to work. By the use
of the present tense here and in the former verse, I

* It is manifest how widely the case of these widows differs from
that of the nuns of the Romanists. The former bound themselves
by such a vow for the purpose of greater usefulness ; whereas the
latter, by wholly secluding themselves from the world, deprive them-
selves of all opportunity of this kind.

ἧ

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. 205

cannot but think (with Theophyl.) that the Apostle
adverts to what had really happened, and was hap-
pening.

᾿Αργαὶ μανθάνουσι, sub. οὔσαι, for εἶναι : a com-
mon Grecism. Other interpretations are proposed ;
but none that have any semblance of truth. See
Wolf and Heinr. Φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, triflers* and
busy-bodies, curious, prying into what does not con-
cern them ;- and consequently λαλοῦσαι τὰ px) δέοντα.
The οὐ μόνον hints that the vices following are en-
gendered by idleness. Theophyl. well annotates
thus: Περιοδεύουσαι γὰρ τὰς οἰκίας, οὐδὲν GAN ἢ τὰ
ταύτης πρὸς ἐκείνην φέρουσι, καὶ τὰ ἐκείνης εἰς ταύτην"
καὶ ἀναγκαίως εἰς περιεργίαν ἐκ τοῦ ἐρευνᾷν πάντα, καὶ
φλυαρίαν, ἐκ τοῦ λέγειν τὰ πάντων πρὸς πᾶντας, ἐκτρα-
χηλίβονται.

18. λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δεόντα. <A sort of euphemism,
signifying, “ talking scandal : a vice with which
the fair sex have been in all ages charged. So Eurip.
Phoen. 205. φιλόψογον δὲ χρῆμα θηλειῶν ἔφυ Σμικρὰς δ᾽
ἀφορμὰς ἣν λάβωσι τῶν λόγων, Π]λείους ἐπεισφέρουσιν"
ἠδονὴ δὲ τις γυναιξὶ, μηδὲν ὑγιὲς ἀλλήλας λέγειν.

14. βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν. [{ 15 strange that
our Common Version and Benson should render
“younger women,’ when both the antients and al-
most all moderns are agreed that it can only mean
the younger widows, of whom the context speaks.
With respect to the βούλομαι, it must not be ren-

* The term comes from φλύος, a bubble, such as rises in soap and
water: a fit image of worthlessness; and to blow up such well de-
signates the strenua inertia of the trifler. By referring the metaphor
to water boiling over, and interpreting this term of the fermentation
with which trifling persons give vent to their feelings, Doddr. him-
self φλυαρεῖ. Nor was Wets. much better employed in heaping to-
gether examples of such common words as φλύαρος and its deriva-
tives,

+ This busy, curious, prying spirit is admirably depicted in a
masterly sketch of Theophr. Char. Eth. Wetstein’s examples show
how much the word zeprepy. was associated with terms denoting
garrulity. Indeed, as the Poet says, ‘‘ For who talks much, must
talk in vain.”

266 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V.

dered, with Mackn. and others, I order, command.
It rather unites injunction and advice. Here it has
been justly argued that St. Paul permits second
marriages; nay, Doddr. observes that it would be a
very great objection against Christianity if second
marriages were condemned by it! Which is very
true; but it is one thing to permit, and another to
approve: and here the Apostle’s approbation cannot
be inferred: for I agree with those Commentators
(as Grot.) who think that the βούλομαι is to be taken
comparatée ; q.d. I wish them to marry again, if
they are so inclined and have opportunity, rather
than aim at what they cannot attain,” namely, a
dedicating of themselves, by celibacy, to the promo-
tion of the Gospel.

The words τεκνογονεῖν and οἰκοδεσποτεῖν signify, to
exercise and occupy themselves in the duties of a
wife. And the following μηδεμίαν---- χάριν show the
good which might be expected to result from such
constant occupation, namely, that they would avoid
the temptations of idleness, and give no handle of
calumny to the adversaries of the faith. Compare
Luke 21, 15. 1 Cor. 16,9. Phil. 1, 28. 2 Thess.
2,5. In τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ, as Heinr. observes, we have
the singular for the plural; as often. λοιδορίας
χάριν is for λοιδορίας ἕνεκα, and stands in the place of
εἰς λοιδορίαν, quod attinet ad, &c.

15. ἤδη γὰρ τινες ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ Σατανᾶ.
This is thought to denote defection from the Chris-
tian faith; ἐκτρ. signifying, metaphorically, to for-
sake a direct road. Satan, they say, stands for ido-
latry and heathenism, supported by Satan : and ὀπίσω,
they observe, with verbs of going, signifies to follow.
Perhaps the phrase éer. ὁπ. Zar. may also denote a
practical abandonment of the Gospel by such con-
duct as is inconsistent both with the letter and the
spirit of it.

16. εἶ τις---ἐπαρκέση. “ But if any (whether
male or female).” The πιστὸς ἢ riot} may be com-

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Vv. 267

pared with the νεωτέρους and νεωτέρας, supra ver. 2.
"Exes χήρας, “ hath widows as near relations.” ’Emap-
κείτω αὐταῖς, “ let him or her relieve their wants.”
Costin 5} ᾽
See supra, ver. 10. Ἵνα ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέση,
“ relieve those who are really destitute.’ See supra,
ver. 3. It is rightly observed by the antients and
some eminent moderns, that the Apostle plainly in-
tends no more than bare sustenance. On this sub-
ject (important, as being the principle on which any
system for the support of the poor ought to be
founded), see an admirable Discourse of Dr. Maltby,
vol. 2.

17. οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς
ἀξιούθωσαν.

From the relief of the poor the Apostle proceeds to the support
of the Clergy; and here we are left as much in the dark as on
many other matters treated of in the former part of the Epistle.
That a stipend was appropriated to the support of the ministry, we
learn from 1 Cor.: but, whether fixed or varying, whence arising,
and to what amount, we knew not, nor, indeed, could expect to
learn from the Apostle, whose delicacy forbids his entering into
particulars; and ecclesiastical history supplies little information.
We may, however, suppose that the stipend varied according to
circumstances, i.e. the expense to be incurred by subsistence in
various places. That it was noé left to chance collection is very
probable; else how could any minister regulate his expenses ?
That in all cases it then never exceeded what was absolutely neces-
sary fora decent maintenance, we may very well suppose from the
poverty of the contributors. Much more might be said on this sub-
ject, but on a point to which we might apply the words of Eurip.
(ap. Plut. 2,768.) Μάντις δ᾽ ἄριστος; ὅστις εἰκάξει καλῶς, 1 forbear.

The προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι are generally admitted to be the
Presbyters who presided over the rest (who, Benson thinks, are the
first-fruits of Ephesus) and over the Church of any place.* ’Aécoto- ©
θαι τινος, like the Latin dignari, is used of the obtaining any thing
any one is thought worthy of, and is almost always used in a good
sense.

* Now the worthily and judiciously presiding over it required no
ordinary talents and great exertion. In all assemblies (as observes
Benson) the regularity or irregularity of their proceedings depends
very much on the wisdom and conduct of such as preside. The
due discharge of the work of presiding (especially in that iafant
state of the Church, and whén they were surrounded with enemies)
required great prudence and application; and the flourishing or
decay of the Christian Church did very much depend upon their
management,

268 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V.

Of these it issaid, that they shall have double τιμὴ, by which we
are not merely to understand (with some) respect, but also, consi-
dering the context, provision. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : τὴν
τῶν ἀναγκαίων χορηγίαν. And on this most of the recent Com-
mentators are agreed. See Wolf’s Cure, and a Dissertation of
Floder on this subject, referred to by Sch]. Lex. There is no doubt
but both respect and proviszon are meant; and, considering the
smallness of the stipend that the infant Churches could afford, there
is little question but that it might very properly have been doubled.
As, however, the τιμῆς seems also to import respect, and as the
Apostle never elsewhere descends to particulars of this kind,* I
agree with many eminent moderns that the διπλῆς τιμῆς is put (de-
terminate for indeterminate) to denote a much greater stipend. So
Theodoret explains πλειόνος. And so Chrys. and Theophyl., πολλῆς
a liberal stipend. Of this signification of διπλ. Schleus. examples
from Ap. 18, 16. Soph. Cid. Tyr. 1328, διπλᾶ σε πενθεῖν, καὶ διπλᾶ
φέρειν κακὰ" and AXschyl. Ag. 546. And many may be found in
the Old Testament. So also Shakspeare: ‘* Double double, toil
and trouble.” Wets., indeed, adduces passages where mention is
made of soldiers who, for services, had double pay assigned them,
and who were called é:potpivacand duplarii. But there is (1 think)
at most only an allusion to that custom.

On the expediency of a liberal provision being made for a Priest,
there ought not to be any doubt. The chief reason is well expressed
by Theophyl. thus: καὶ yap δεῖ τοὺς διδασκάλους ἀφθονίᾳ περιῤ-
ῥεῖσθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων, ἵνα μὴ περισπώμενοι περὶ ταῦτα, ἀμελῶσι
τῆς διδασκαλίας. See an excellent note of Whitby in loc.

The use of the term τιμὴ to denote this stipend, may very well be
reckoned among the delicacies of Greek phraseology and of the
Apostle. See Heinr., who refers to Acts 28, 10. and Sir. 38, 1.,
and says the Rabbins so explain 123 in Num. 22,16. See Schleus.
Lex. V. T.

17. μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν Aoyw καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.
Rosenm. compares Acts 6, 4., and observes that
there were then many inspectors of a congregation,
of whom some had only the public care of the
Church; others taught the people. Benson ren-
ders: “if they also diligently teach the Christian
doctrine.” He (it seems), like Heinr. and Rosenm.,
took the λόγῳ and διδασκαλίᾳ for an hendiadis ; which
may be correct; but the former seems to respect
public teaching ; and the latter, private instruction.

* And very rarely the Ecclesiasticalewriters. Yet in a passage of
Euseb. H. E. L. 5, 28. (cited by Wets.) there is mention made of a
Sectarian Bishop being engaged ὥστε λαμβάνειν μηνιαῖα dnvapia pr’.

said

1 TIMOTHY; CHAP. V. 269

18. λέγει yap—adrod. In order to establish the
claim of ministers to subsistence, the Apostle ad-
duces two passages from Scripture, one from Deut.
25, 14., but here applied figuratively (see the note
on | Cor. 9, 9.); the other is said, by Rosenm., to
have been added by St. Paul de suo. Yet the καὶ
must mean, “and again in another part of Scripture.”
Now it does occur at Matt. 10, 10.; and that St.
Paul had, at the time he wrote this Epistle, seen the
Gospel of St. Matt., at least, in the first Hebrew
edition, none can well doubt: and on account of
this having been recorded as uttered by our Lord,
and being in substance to be found at Deut. 24, 14.
and Levit. 19, 13., the Apostle is justified in the use
of the expression.

It is plain, from what precedes, that πρεσίβ. must
here mean a Presbyter, not an elderly person, as
some explain. See Whitby. Παραδ. implies a ready
admission of any story. See Raphel in loc. ’Exris
εἰ μὴ, except. Seel Cor. 14, 5. 15, 2. and the notes.
Avo ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων. So Deut. 19,15. Matt. 18, 16.
Joh. 8, 17.

20. τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε. It is
not quite agreed whom the Apostle means by the
ἅμαρτ., Whether the Presbyters, or the people at
large. ‘The context seems to favour the former
opinion, which is adopted by Benson and others ;
but the air of the sentence and the change of num-
ber require the latter, which the antients and most
moderns, with reason, prefer. All persons, then, of
whatever class, sex, or age, &c., are intended.

Heinr. would transpose ver. 19 & 20. But in-
stances of slight irregularity like the present are not
unfrequent.

On the mode of this ecclesiastical correction
Chrys. and Theophyl. have some admirable remarks.
They explain the τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας : τοὺς ἐπιμένοντας
τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ, καὶ ods εὕρης μετὰ ἐρεύνης. And they
remark on the equally pernicious effects of excessive
severity and of extreme lenity.

270 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V.

The words ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσι hint at the
only legitimate end of punishment, namely, not the
gratification of the ill-humour of the punisher, but
the prevention of the crime.

21. diepactipopoi—mrpookmiow. A most solemn
injunction, on which Benson may be consulted ;
though he, as often, runs into needless refinements.
It seems to have regard to all that went before in
this Chapter. Heinr. compares Joseph. B. J. 2,
16, 4. Μαρτύρομαι δ᾽ ἐγὼ ὑμῶν τὰ ayia, Kal τοὺς ἱεροὺς
ἀγγέλους τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν πατρίδα τὴν κοινὴν. The
phrase χωρὶς προκρίμιοιτος signifies, without preference
or partiality, προσωποληψία, respect of persons. The
next words μηδὲν ποιών κατὰ πρόσκλισιν signify,
«doing nothing through partiality.” Of the term
mpoox., and especially in its juridical application,
Wets. adduces many examples.

22, χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει. It is strange
that Heinr. should interpret this of laying on hands,
in order to heal the sick, or of laying on hands, in
order to absolve penitents, both equally inconsistent
with the words following. Most Commentators,
antient and modern, are agreed (See Whitby) that
it applies to the ordination of Priests and Deacons ;
which implies an Episcopal authority and juris-
diction.

Ταχέως is well explained by Theophyl. μὴ ἐκ πρώ-
τῆς δοκιμασίας, μηδὲ ἐκ τρίτης, ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἐξετάσας
καὶ ἀκριβῶς. ‘The words following (as ‘Theodoret
observes) hint at the danger, q, ἃ. “ lest from being
the cause of what is done, thou be partaker of his
offences, and consequently of the punishment thence
resulting.” The σεαυτὸν ἀγνὸν τήρει is, by some, re-
ferred to the former; q.d. “ From such sins keep
thyself free.” But this seems harsh. It is better,
with the antients and several moderns, to regard it
as an independent and general admonition, making
σεαυτὸν emphatical, and understanding the ἀγν. of
moral purity, especially chastity.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. Q71

23. μηκέτι ὑδροπότει---ἀσθενείας. ‘This sentence is
regarded by the best Commentators as parenthetical.
Yet the Apostle would scarcely make so abrupt an
insertion as many Commentators suppose. (See
Benson and Paley ap. Valpy.) It should rather
appear to be suspended on the σεαυτὸν ἅγνον τήρει 5
and the connection has (I think) been best seen by
Crell. and Heinr.; q.d. “ And in order thereto
practise not the ascetic austerities so magnified by
some; do not mortify the flesh, lest it be too weak
to assist the spirit. No drink no longer water.”
By édpor. is meant, drink not water only; Anglice,
“be no longer a water-drinker.” Of this sense of
the word Wets. adduces many examples. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οἴνῳ
χρώ, “but use a little wine (with 10). The Com-
mentators, especially Wets., here adduce numerous
Classical citations on the beneficial effect of wine
drunk in moderation; which may be believed with-
out those weighty vouchers. It is, however, rather
a medical than a theological question ; and as such
I leave it. ‘The Heathen Priests, we are told, either
drank none, or but little.

It is observed by Benson, that there was no occa-
sion for inspiration to give this counsel. But Mackn.,
with far more judgment, remarks that it was pro-
perly inserted in an inspiree writing, because thereby
the superstition of those who totally abstain from
wine and all fermented liquors, on pretence of supe-
rior sanctity, is condemned.

24, 25. τίνων ἀνθρωπων---κρίσιν. There has been
some difference of opinion as to the scope of this and
the next verse. Some antients and moderns think
it is to be taken, in a general way, of the judgment
of God. Others refer it to the ecclesiastical censures
before mentioned. Others, again, as‘Chrys. and the
Greek Commentators (and indeed most eminent
moderns), take it to relate solely to the ordination
mentioned at ver. 22. ‘This interpretation (which
alone bears the stamp of truth) is well expressed by

Q72 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. V. VI.

Whitby. Rosenm. observes that ἁμαρτίαι signifies
the report of the sins, as πίστις the report of faith,
1 Thess. 1,8. On the sense of προδηλ. see the note
on 9 (οι. ὅ, 11.

Theodoret well paraphrases thus: Οὐ πάντες προ-
davis ἁμαρτάνουσιν" εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ καὶ κρύβδην παρανομοῦ-
σιν" AAA ὅμως τὸ δήμιερον λανθάνον TH χρόνῳ φωράται"
ἀνάμιενε τοίνυν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς πείρας διδασκαλίαν.

The obscurity with which this admonition is
worded is similar to that often found in passages of
Thucyd. or Tacitus. Nor is it unusual in the Rab-
binical writers. Indeed it has ever been a charac-
teristic of the Oriental style to express common
thoughts in an uncommon way, rather than (like the
Western sages) “ to think with the wise, and speak
with the foolish.”

CHAP. VI.

The directions in this and the following verse are
(as appears from ver. 3.) intended to correct certain
contrary positions of false teachers. ‘These are sup-
posed, by many eminent modern Commentators, to
have been Judaizers, who wanted to introduce into
the Christian Church the doctrine that, as no Jew
was to remain a slave for life, so ought no Christian;
thus releasing men from civil duties, under the pre-
tence of religious rights, to the great scandal of the
Gospel. (See Benson and Mackn.) This seems not
improbable; and yet the notion may be carried too
far. Into errors of this kind ignorant or unreflect-
ing persons might easily fall, without the corruption
of any judaizing doctrines, or the seductions of false
teachers. It was easy to see that the spirit of the
Gospel (whick. considers all men as equal) is adverse
to slavery ; and in proportion as its injunctions are
obeyed, tends to root out a practice in which folly
and injustice are alike conspicuous, It was natural

I TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 273

for persons ignorant and poor to believe what they
wished, and to confound the spirit with the letter of
the Gospel, and regard it as freeing men from all
obligations inconsistent with justice and equity.
The misunderstanding, too, of metaphors (such as
“ the liberty with which Christ hath made us free,”’)
would encourage this error. Be that as it may, the ad-
monitions in question (especially as meant for a part
of the world where slaves were exceedingly nu-
merous) were highly seasonable.

VERSE 1. ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ϑυγὸν δοῦλοι, τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπό-
tas π. τ. ἀ. ἡ. The expression ὑπὸ ϑυγὸν occurs in
the Classical writers. Yet, perhaps, the Apostle
puts the case in its strongest form, to more com-
pletely show the obligation to duty. By the δεσποτ.
the Commentators say are meant Heathen masters.
But it is rather used of all, whether Heathen or
Christian. ᾿Ἰδίους has no emphasis; nor, indeed,
much force. It may be rendered respective. Πάσης
τιμῆς, “ reverence and obedience of every kind, both
in words, gestures, and deeds.” II. τ. ἀξίους ἡγείσθωσαν
is a refined expression for, “ let them show all respect,
&e. The ὄνομα rod Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία is treated,
by Heinr., as an hendiadis for, ‘‘ the glory of God to
be promoted by the religion of Christ.” But the
terms may better be considered separately. Baac-
φημῆται, “censured and calumniated.” For the
reasons above mentioned the Gospel might be mis-
understood, and, therefore, abused by some, and
calumniated by others. Compare 1 Pet., 2, 18.

2. μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν, scil. αὐτῶν, “ let them not
despise their orders, and refuse obedience.” ᾿Αλλὰ
μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν, “but let them serve them the
more Zealously.” Ὅτι πιστοὶ---ἀντιλαμβανόμιενοι. The
sense of πιστοὶ and ἀγαπητοί is clear: both terms
denoting Christians ; the former, as regards God ;
the latter, both God and each other. But the sense
of οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμιβανόμιενοι is somewhat ob-
scure, and, from tle extent of sense in the words,
indeterminate. It may be understood either with

VOL, VIII. ες

274. 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

reference to the masters, i. e. those who receive the
benefit (of their service), see Els., Benson, and
Wets.); or to the slaves, i. e. those who apply
themselves to benefit them. And so the antients,
and many recent Commentators. There is some
harshness connegted with both interpretations ; but
the former (which is well detailed by Valpy and
Slade) seems to be the more natural and agreeable to
the context. It is required, too, by the article;
and it is characteristic of the delicacy of-the Apostle
to term the service an eepy.; just as a little before
he calls the stipend paid to Ministers a τιμὴ."

8. εἴτις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ. On this term see the
note supra, 1, 3., καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται, “and comes not
to, hearkens not to, is not obedient to.” This signi-
fication is illustrated by Loesner, Kypke, and
Munthe: and thus it appears that there was no
occasion for Bentley to conjecture προσέχεται. ‘The
examples adduced by those Commentators remove
the great Critic’s objection, that such a sense is un-
authorized. ‘The only harshness is, that the term
would rather require a dative of the person than of
the thing. But the Apostle little heeds such
niceties ; and probably this is a Cilicism, or provin-
cial and idiotical expression.

γιαίνουσι λόγοις 15 used as vy. διδασκαλία, supra,
1, 10.; and of this expression Loesner adduces
several examples from Philo. ‘The καὶ is exegetical,
and signifies even. The τοῦ κυρίου I. X. is best ex-

plained by Doddr. thus : ‘“ What the Apostle wrote,

* The sentence is elegantly paraphrased by Wets. thus: ‘* Verdm
est, servos, qui Christo nomen dederunt, ad altiorem evehi dignita-
tem, et dominorum suorum fratres fieri: neque tamen ideo eos im-
perium detrectare, dominorumque jussa contemnere fas est; quin
potius propter hoc ipsum magis servire debent, nam tum demum
fidorum et dilectorum appellatione vere digni erunt, si curant, ut
non tantum formidine poenz imperat& faciant, sed ex amore erga
dominos liberaliter ipsis serviant, su voluntate negotia domini
gerant, deque illis bene mereri, atque adeo etiam beneficia in domi-
nos conferre studeant.” ᾿

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. Q75

as by Divine direction, was, in effect, the words and
commandments of Christ.”

4. τετύφωται---λογομαχίας, ‘© He is puffed with
the inflation of ignorance; for nothing does he
know as he ought,” "ke. See the note supra, 3, 6.*
As to the reading of some MSS. τετύῴφλωται, it seems
to bea paradiorthosis : : though I have observed that
the words are often interchanged ; as in Phil. Jud.,
p. 1, & 335 p., besides numerous other passages
illustrative of the two words, which I omit. ‘The
sense is, ‘‘ he is puffed up with spiritual pride, epee
knowing nothing accurately.” Compare Col. 2
The verb τυφόω, tron tidos, smoke, has three senses ; :
1., to smoke, as used of bees ; so Hesych. : ὐφι δι
πνίξαι, ἀπόλεσαι. 2., to blow up, and, metaphorically,
to inflate, make vain; as here, and in 2 'Tim., 3, 4.
3., to encircle with smoke, thereby dimming the eyes,
and, metaphorically, the understanding. So Alczus
frag. 8. Mus. Crit. 1, 426., πάμπαν δὲ τύφος ἐξέλετο
φρένας.

4ς νοσῶν περὶ δητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας. The νοσῶν
is used in conformity with ὑγαίνουσι λόγοις just before,
and signifies, “ having a diseased and morbid fond-
ness for.” Bp. Wilkins would render: “sick of
the wrangling disease,” with which, Doddr. truly ob-
serves, the Christian Clergy, of all ages and nations,
have been too generally infected.

By ϑητήσεις, are meant subtle questions, mere
puzzles, such as the Orientals have ever delighted in.
Aoyou.ayias denotes, properly, contests about words,
Some take it here to denote disputations on the λόγοι,

* Kypke compares Plut.: δι᾿ ἀγνοίαν καὶ ἀπάτην τετυφωμένον"
2.70., μανικὸν καὶ ἀνόητον καὶ τετυφωμένον" 169., τετύφωται καὶ
δαιμονῶσιν' and 330., ἀσόφου καὶ τετυφωμένου. J add Dionys. Hal.
1, 381., τετύφωμαι: Polyb. 3, 8, 1., ἀγνοεῖ καὶ τετύφωται. Lucian Ὁ
755, 7. and 818, 91. Marc. Anton. 8, 25. Philostr. V. Ap. 7, 2
ἀγνοεῖ καὶ rervpwrat. See Irmisch on Hercdian 6, 5, 24.

t+ This sense of γοσεῖν is frequent in the Classical writers. See
Wets., to whose examples I add Paus. 7, 10., οἱ ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ νοση-
σάντες" and Diog. ap. Athen. 104 c., Στοᾶς λογηρίων ἀναπεπλησ-
μένος νοσεῖς.

τῷ

276 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

or laws of Moses; a sense of λόγος elsewhere occur-
ring. But the signification above mentioned must
not be excluded. The subjects of these disputations
(if we may judge by the Rabbinical writings) were,
no doubt, trifling enough, verbal discussions of the
minutest sort; and an agitation of questions, useless
and indeterminable. Would to Heaven that some
Foreign Theologians of the new school could see
how nearly they are copying these ἑτεροδιδασκάλοι ;
so that the words of the Apostle as exactly describe
them as any thing to be found in Theophrastus,
does his originals. ‘Truly is it remarked by The-
ophyl. : Ὅπου οὐκ ἔστι πίστις, ἅπαντα νοσεῖ, καὶ οὐδὲν
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ μάχαι τίκτονται λόγων, τοῦ πιθανοτέρου τὸν ἕτερον
ἀνατρέπειν δοκοῦντος. Ἢ πίστις ὀφθαλμός ἐστιν" ὃ μὲν
ἔχων ὀφθαλμοὺς, οὐδὲν εὑρίσκει, ἀλλὰ μόνον ϑητεῖ.

᾿ @§ovos, ἔρις, and βλασφημίαι, require no expla-
nation. The ὑπόνοιαι πονηραὶ may either signify evil
surmisings and malignant jealousies, as the early
moderns explain; or (rather), as the antients and
the moderns, evil and false doctrines, δόγματα πονηρὰ.
And Grot. compares Sirach 3, 24. It is here truly
and beautifully observed by Theodoret: Oi γὰρ τῆς
ἀληθείας ἀφιστάμενοι, Kal λογισμιοῖς οἰκείοις ἐπόμιενοι,
διδάσκειν μὲν πειρώνται τὰ μὴ προσήχοντα, ἔρις δὲ καὶ
φθόνος ἐντεῦθεν ἀκολουθεῖ, ἐκ δὲ τῆς ἔριδος ἡ κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ
βλασφημία τολμᾶται" τῆς δὲ πίστεως ἐληλαμένης, ὑπό-
νοιαι! πονηραὶ περιφύονται" ἐντεῦθεν δὲ λύμη τις γεννᾶται
διαφθείρουσα τοὺς πελάϑοντας. Rosenm. acknowledges
that the whole history of heresies proves the truth of
the Apostle’s sayings. And yet the Heresiarchs
themselves must have been well aware of the warn-
ing; and, therefore, were without excuse. Heinr.
thinks the words are applicable to those times, and
not the present, “when we have learned greater
liberality !” But human nature is the same in every
age, and I fear the fruits of heresy have been as
bitter in our own as in any former period.

5. ΠΠαραδιατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν.
Παραδ. (which, as almost all Critics are agreed, should

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 277

be read for διαπαρατρ.) is explained, by Theophyl.,
σχολαὶ μάταιοι. The διὰ, Heinr. thinks, imports
vehemence, and the παρὰ, inanity. ‘The term seems
to stand in the place of two words; διατρ., which is
trequent, and παρατριβὴ, which is somewhat rare:
though Wets. adduces examples; as Max. Tyr. D.
39, 3., πολλαὶ γὰρ al παρατριβαὶ Kat ἀπατηλαὶ, ὧν αἱ
μὲν πολλαὶ ἐπὶ κρημνοὺς καὶ βάραθρα. ἄγουσιν. The
compounds διαπαρα and rapadia are almost equally
rare. Here I would compare a similar sentiment of
Plut. 2, 999., λόγων ἐθήλουν σχολὴν καὶ διατρίβας
ἀπράκτους.

ὅ. ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας. ‘This must mean,
who have deprived themselves of the truth (as found
in the Gospel), are devoid of it. And Heinr. com-
pares ἀστόχειν τῆς ἀληθείας at 1, 6., and ναυαγεῖν περὶ
τὴν πίστιν, 1, 19.; observing, that the cause why they
are so is, that they sacrifice religion to lucre.*

5. νομιϑόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσεβείαν. The
best Commentators interpret this, “ thinking and
regarding religion, the Christian as well as any
other, a thing valuable only as it is subservient to
lucre and interest.” See Grot., Crell., Benson,
Doddr., &c. It is strange that so many should have
rendered it, “* supposing that gain is godliness.” For
though the construction equally permits this, and it
may be justified in a loose paraphrase, it is not so
apposite. Indeed, as Abp. Newcome observes, the
article shows that εὐσέβεια is the subject, not the
predicate. Of passages of this structure Wets.
adduces as examples Dionys. Hal. 3, 5., οἱ δὲ χρημα-
τισμὸν ἡγούμενοι τὸν πόλεμον. Seneca, Ep. 108., qui
philosophiam velut aliquod artificium venale didice-
runt. See also Liv. 4, 30. To which I add the fol-
lowing still more apposite ones. Zosin. 2, 88, 2., τὴν

* So Theophyl. remarks “that the λογομάχοι draw more disciples,
from whom they derive profit ; and hence cultivate the λογομαχία͵
the more, that they may draw over the more.” This, I would ob-
serve, affords no bad clue to the origin and maintenance of

Sectarism.

278 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

γὰρ ἀσωτίαν ἡγεῖτο φιλοτιμίαν" Joseph 1108, 19., ἀρε-
τὴν ἡγούμενος τὴν ἀπάτην" Apollon. Epist. Bony πλὴν εἰ
μὴ τῶν ἀνοήτων λόγῳ, παρ᾽ οἷς καὶ ὃ πλοῦτος ἀρετὴ.

᾿Αφίστασο ἀπὸ τοιούτων. It is strange that so
many Critics should wish to cancej these words,
because they are omitted in some six MSS., the
Vulg. and Copt. No good reason can be assigned
for their insertion ; whereas their omission is easily
accounted for, namely, from accidental error, which
could not easily be afterwards discovered, as they
are not necessary to the context. Pricaeus compares
many similar passages of the Classical writers; and
Schleus. compares Sirach 7, 2., ἀπόστηθι ἀπὸ ἀδίκου.
The Greek Commentators well explain: “do not
dispute with them ; for, until their disease of avarice
be cured, no good can be hoped for.”

6. ἔστι δὲ πορισμὸς μέγα ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας.
The Apostle, skilfully (per antanaclasin et epanor-
thosin), gives such a turn to the phrase as may serve
to impress a lesson on ‘Timothy, never to be for-
gotten by any Minister of the Gospel. So Chrys.
and Theophyl. : ἐστι τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ πορισμὸς, οὐχ ὡς
ἐκεῖνοι οἴονται, ἀλλὰ μειϑόνως" οὐχ ὅταν χοηρματα ἔχῃ
ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν μὴ ἔχη. Heinr. here, as often, shoots
beyond the mark, and misses the truth, which lies
ante pedes, by seeking it in nubibus. The common
interpretation is undoubtedly the true one. [{ογισ-
pos, signifies, what produces great gain. I would
compare magi ie P. V. 3., μέγας πόρος. See the note
on Phil. 3,'7.* The sense is: ‘ Religion, if accom-
panied with that contented spirit which it imparts,
produces the greatest gain, even the greatest happi-
ness.”

7. οὐδὲν yap εἰσηνέγκαμιεν----δυνάμεθα. The yap has
reference to a clause omitted; 4. d. ‘* Why should
we be so anxious to secure what can stand us in so

* Among many other passages Wets. here compares Cic. Parad.
6., Scil. It. 1, 615., Philo. 2, 552, 5., τί ἂν εἴῃ κέρδος λυσιτελέστε-
ρον ὁσιότητος ; Diod. Sic, 594., Epicurus ap, Clem. Alex. 751., Hor.
Carm. 4, 9, 15.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 279

little stead, and fail us sosoon. For there is no-
thing we can long enjoy.” A reason for abandoning
all excessive anxiety about gaining wealth obvious
to natural reason, and which had been often en-
larged on (though to little purpose) by the philo-
sophers.*

8, ἔχοντες δὲ διατροφὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα, τούτοις
ἀρκεσθησόμεθα, ““ Having then food and raiment, let
us be therewith content.” Here, Theophyl. re-
marks, the Apostle shews in what this αὐταρκεία
consists.

Διατροῷ. is a somewhat rare word, especially in
the plural. One should rather have expected the
singular (which is indeed found in some MSS., but
ex emendatione). Perhaps it was so put to answer
to σκεπάσματα, which is also rare in the plural, and
may be compared with our clothes. Commentatcrs
have not seen that the διὰ in-dierp. imports certainty,
i.e. a perpetual supply of necessary food. Kypke
observes, that oxer. includes the shelter of a house.
And this might be confirmed and illustrated from
Artemid. 4, 30., where Reif refers to G. Wakef.
5. C. 3, 147. But it is probable that this was a pro-
verbial phrase ; and as house-room is the least of
the wants of man in the East, so it is not mentioned.
On the sentimené see Grot. and Wolf. Wets. ad-
duces several Classical passages, to which I add
Eurip. Phoen. 564. Hec. 321. Incert. frag. 14. and
163. and Adschin. p. 85, 6. ἀρκεῖ μοι μικρὰ, καὶ μει-
ϑόνων αἰσχρῶς οὐκ ἐπιθυμώ. See also D. Cass. 18, 67.
Herodian 4,'7, 9. Diod. Sic. 3,28. Hebr. 18, 5.

* Wets. cites Hor. Carm. 2, 14, 21., Propert. 3, 3., Ovid. T. 5,
14, 12., Sil. It. 5, 26., &c. See also Grot. and Pric. Heinr. (from
Loesner) cites Philo, 852 c. Μηδὲν eis κόσμον, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ σαυτὸν
εἰσὴνεγκας᾽ γυμνὸς μὲν γὰρ ἦλθες, γυμνὸς πάλιν ἀπίης" where there
seems reference to Job 1, 21., Eccles.5, 15. See also Ps. 49, LI.
To the above I add Soph, Antig. 1037., and Eurip. Ion. 648.

+ This is considered asa plural; though it is probably one of
those numerous nouns derived from the third person singular pre-
sent indicative : on which see Η, Tooke in his "Exec Πτερ.

280 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

9. οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμον
καὶ παγίδα.

Heinr. here remarks: ‘‘ Que jam de avaritid et amore scelerato
habendi sequuntur, neutiquam urgenda nimis aut premenda, sed
eogitandum, apud Judzos idolatriam et avaritiam fuisse in summo
crimine habita.”” And again: ‘ Populariter ergo, ut aiunt, hec
intelligenda.”’ But surely the learned Theologian never more ma-
nifestly perverted the truth than here. It is one of the most pro-
minent characteristics of the Gospel, that it so severely condemns a
vice which has produced more crime and more misery, (with less
temptation to plead), than any other! It is in vain, too, that Heinr.
attempts to dilute the strong sense of the Apostle, in this finely con-
ceived and well expressed passage which follows. And it is in vain
that he attempts to sink it into Jewish notions by the following Rab-
binical passage (cited by Schoettg. H. Hebr.) Cam Salomon edi-
ficdsset templum, stetit in precibus suis et dixit: Domine totius
mundi, si homo a te divitias petet in hac domo, tu vero scias quod
periturus sit in divitiis suis. Avarice and idolatry are indeed com-
pared, both in the Old and new Testament ; not that they are of
equal enermity, but in order to show the great guilt of the former.
Surely had not avarice been a great crime, our Lord would never
have used the strong language he so often did: nor would St. Paul
have expressed himself as he has done here, andelsewhere. So at
ver. 17. he anxiously resumes the subject, and earnestly enjoins Ti-
mothy. to ‘charge them that are rich μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, &c.

This, however, is a subject too extensive to be thus treated in
transcursu ; and, to turn to the passage before us, οἱ βουλόμενοι π.
is rendered, “ qui ditescere cupiunt,” who would be rich. But the
sense may be better expressed thus, “‘ who study to be rich, and direct
their thoughts and cares to its attainment.” Thus it will include
those already rich ; since they usually aim at more. The eis πει-
ρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα are considered as an hendiadis for eis πειρασμοῦ
παγίδα. But the terms are better kept separate; and we must
subaud τοῦ διαβόλου (which is supplied in some very antient MSS.),
or τοῦ πονὴροῦ. On these words the philological Commentators
adduce nothing. The following citation may therefore be accept-
able. Thucyd. 3, 45. ἡ δ᾽ ἐξουσία ὕβρει τὴν πλεονεξίαν καὶ φρονή-
part αἱ δ᾽ ἄλλαι ξυντυχίαι ὀργῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὡς ἑκάστη τις
κατέχεται ὑπ᾽ ἀνηκεστὸν τινὸς κρείττονος, ἐξάγουσιν ἐς τοὺς κιν-
δύνους.

The words following are exegetical of the preceding, and exem-
plify the effects of the temptation. They fall, the Apostle says, eis
ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους Kai βλαβερὰς. The ἀνοητ. is applicable.
to foolish kinds of expence which the rich and luxurious run into:
on which see Chrys. and Theophyl. It is, however, also applied to
the affections and passions, and especially in carnal gratification.*

_* T would compare Pausan. 8, 24, 4. The τὸ μῶρον and ἡ.
μωρία, are especially used by the Greck dramatists of ἀκολασία ; as

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 281

ll these particulars may be included ; and such things: are indeed
ἀνόητα, because (as Mack. says) they are unworthy the dignity of
human nature. That they are βλαβερὰ, hurtful even to the person
himself, is equally certain; always tending to disease, and ever
cheating the wretch with the shadow, but never giving him the
substance of happiness is certain, thus turning out to be, in the
words of Scripture ‘‘ vain things which cannot profit, because they
are vain.”

The metaphor in βυθίϑουσιν---ἀπώλειαν, is taken from plunging
any One into a deep abyss from which he can never rise, and is not
unfrequent in the Classical writers. See Wets., the most apposite
of whose citations is Longin. 8, 44. ἡ γὰρ φιλοχρηματία, πρὸς ἣν
ἅπαντες ἀπλήστως ἤδη νοσοῦμεν, καὶ ἣ φιληδονία dovtaywyover,
μᾶλλον δὲ ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, καταβυθίξουσι αὐτάνδρους ἤδη τοὺς βιούς.
So also Apulej. cited (after Pric.) by Rosenm.

10. piga γὰρ πάντων τών κακών ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία.
A sentiment very common in the Classical writers.
See Wets.* Theodoret observes: καὶ yap μιαιφονίαι,
καὶ γοητείαι, καὶ ἁρπαγαὶ καὶ πλεονεξίαι, καὶ ψεῦδος, καὶ
παράβασις ὅρκων, καὶ τἄλλα τῆς παρανομίας εἴδη, ἐκ τῆς
ῥίϑης ταύτης βλαστάνει.

10. καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς. A very
lively and forcible image, in the explanation of
which, however, many critics, as Leigh, Doddr.,
Mackn., and others, who render it, “ stabbed them-
selves from head to foot,” are greatly mistaken.
The περὶ is here put for ἐπὶ, or ἐν, upon. Wets. ad-
duces many examples both of the physical sense,
by which the term signifies to stick any thing
through, or stick any thing upon, as a piece of meat
on a fork; and of the metaphorical, as περίπ. ὀδύνη,
which occurs in Hom. Il. ε. 399. ἅς. Among many
other passages which I could here cite, I will only
adduce a shrewd remark of AXsop F. os’ ἀδεκάστως
πράγμα προσιόντες λανθάνουσιν ἑαυτοὺς περιπείροντες
ἀτοπίστοις.

How this ὀδύνη arises, it is needless to explain.

Eurip. Hipp. 972. Troad 1059. Dictys. frag. 1. Suid. ἀνόητα, ἀφρο-
δίσια. And so Goldsmith: ‘ When lovely woman stoops to folly.”

* To whose examples I add Theogn. Sentent. 389. seqq. 904.
seqq- Phocyl. 13, 37. Aristoph. Ao. 158 a. δεῖ Spy ἄνευ βαλαντίου,
where see Timocreon. Eurip. Ineert. frag, 155. ὦ Ζεὺς---πέμψον
μὲν φῶς ψυχᾶς, ἀνέρων τοῖς βουλομένοις ἀθλόυς προμαθεῖν πόθεν
ἔβλαστον, τις ῥίξα κακῶν.

282 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

11. σὺ δὲ-τ-πρᾳότητα. The term ἄνθρωπος Θεοῦ
properly denotes a servant of God; as Ps. 90, 11. ;
or a divine legate, who makes known the will of
God to men; a title frequently applied in the Old
Testament to Prophets, as Elijah. And this seems
to be the sense here; for elsewhere the Apostle
says, “ Sothen we are ambassadors for Christ’s sake.”

11. δίωκε δὲ δικαιωσύνην, “pursue studiously.” [
would compare Eurip. Ion 440. δίωκε ἀρετὰς. With
the following list of the principal Christian duties ;
compare Gal. 5, 22. The δικαιοσύνη signifies righte-
ousness towards men; εὐσεβεία, piety towards God,
godliness. ἸΠίστιν is explained by many recent Com-
mentators fidelity. But the common interpretation,
a true faith, a firm unshaken faith, is equally well
founded. The other terms require no explanation.

12. ἀγωνίϑου τὸν καλὸν ἀγώνα τῆς πίστεως. Many
Commentators, especially the recent ones, under-
stand this of maintaining the good cause of religion.
(See Heinr. and Rosenm.) But that seems too
limited an interpretation, and arose from a miscon-
ception of the scope of the passage, which is well
pointed out by Crell. thus: ““ Occasione superioris
admonitionis in generalem παραίνεσιν effunditur, qua
illum quodam quasi vocis suze classico ad strenué
officii sui munera obeunda excitat, quasi dicat. Et
ut rem in pauca conferam, et in quo omnes conatus
ac industriam tuam consumi et occupari volo semel
aperiam.” ‘This must regard all his exertions as a
Christian and a minister, whether in the defence of
the faith, or in the propagation and illustration of
it, both by his words and action.

The ἀγὼν is called kaa. or κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, honourable,
as compared with the ignoble objects which called
forth the exertions of the ἀγωνισταί. ‘The agonistic
allusion is especially observable in ἐπιλαβοῦ, which
hints at the eagerness with which the competitors
strove to seize the prize. Of course it must signify
endeavour, strive, lay hold of. Many verbs are to
be so explained; on which see Glass Phil. Sacr.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 283

Rosenm., by rendering it obtain, lets all the spirit of
the metaphor evaporate.

Εἰς ἣν ἐκληθης, 1. 6. not, ““ art called,” but “ weré
called,” namely, at his conversion and baptism. So
Cicumen. ‘The next words καὶ ὡμολόγησας .--- μαρ-
τύρων, some take as exegetical of the preceding.
Thus Heinr. takes καὶ for καὶ γὰρ. But it should
seem that these words refer to the profession and
vow which accompanied ordination to his ministerial
office. Now the ὁμολογία was κάλη, because it con-
tained a full profession of faith and hope, and a so-
lemn engagement to live wholly for the dissemination
of the Christian religion. To these engagements
Timothy’s fortitude and courage in defending, and
zealous diligence in propagating the faith, well cor-
responded,

The witnesses are said by Commentators to have
been the Presbyters. But as πολλῶν is added, it
should seem that the congregation at large, who
were probably admitted on such occasions, may be
understood ; and from the great expectations formed
of so very promising a youth (see 1 Tim. 1, 18. and
the note), there would be a considerable number.

18. παραγγέλλω---ὁμολογίαν. What the Apostle
had so far propounded by figure, he now expresses
in the natural way. For he does not, I think, com-
mence a new subject, but continues the same that
he had before been treating of. How tender was the
affection the Apostle bore to Timothy, is evident
from this solemn charge, which comes from the very
heart. The same warmth of feeling is observable in
c. 5, 21. and 2 Tim. 4,1. By such exhortation he
endeavours to instil into Timothy a constancy to be
shaken by no tribulations, not even death itself.
(Heinr.)

The ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, hints that God is a witness
of this solemn charge. By πάντα are meant all liv-
ing creatures: and it is hinted that God who giveth
life, and preserveth it, can replace the life sacrificed
for the Gospel’s sake by a far more glorious one. —

284: 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

"Ei, sub, coram. The ὁμολογ. refers to the ad-
mission of our Lord, that he was King of the Jews
and the Son of God, Matt. 27, 11. Mark 15, 2. Joh.
18, 87. The τὴν, which is not attended to by the
Commentators, seems to indicate that it was well
known; and thus supplies another proof that St.
Paul was acquainted with the three first Gospels
when he wrote his later Epistles, and with that of
St. Matthew (at least in the Hebrew edition) when
he wrote his earlier ones. One may observe in
μαρτυρ. of. a blending of the two phrases ; for though
μαρτυρίαν μαρτυρεῖν may be used, and ὁμολογίαν ὅμο-
λογεῖν, yet never (I think) μαρτυρίαν. ὁμολογεῖν. So
Theophyl. : τοῦτο καὶ πολλὰ ἑτέρα ἐμαρτύρησε, καὶ
ὁμολόγησε. IT agree with Doddr. that this is called
καλὴν, aS being that on the truth of which all our
hopes of salvation are founded. And so we some-
times use the epithet g glorious.

14. τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολῆν ἄσπιλον, Χο. Most re-
cent Commentators, as Heinr. and Rosenm., take
the ἐντοχὴν to mean the Christian doctrine, the Chris-
tian religion. But the proofs they adduce are very
weak ; and it is not a little harsh to apply the epi-
thets ἄσπιλος and ἀνεπίληπτος to doctrine or religion,
which Rosenm. admits, are always elsewhere used of
the life and conduct. I see no reason to abandon the
common and natural interpretation of ἐντολὴ, namely,
commandment ; though the epithets here used are
as little applicable to commandment as to doctrine.
There is, however, no necessity for construing them
with the ἐντολὴν. ‘They may be taken apart, and re-
ferred to ce. The construction is: (wore σε εἶναι)
ἄσπιλον. And so Beza, Crell., Est., and Heinr.
This, too, is supported by the antients. So Theoph.:
τουτέστι, μήτε δογμάτων ἕ ἕνεκεν, μήτε βίου, κηλίδα τινὰ
ἑαυτῷ προστριβόμιενον. ‘The ἐντολὴ may be understood
of the whole body of injunctions above given ; but
especially that comprehensive one just before “* to
fight the good fight of faith ;” for with this the τὴν
ἐντολὴν is closely connected ; the words εἰς ἣν--τμαρτύ-

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 285

ρων being, in some measure, parenthetical. So that
τὴν ἐντολὴν should be rendered this commandment
or injunction, and a comma should be placed after
ἐντολὴν.

It is strange that from the words μέχρι τῆς ἐπιῷα-
νείας τ. kK. ἄχεα. some, as (τοῦ. and Rosenm., should
have inferred that the Apostle thought Timothy
might live till the day of judgment. Surely if the
Apostle meant any thing of that sort, the words
must imply certainty rather than doubt. Now St.
Paul could not know that but from revelation, and
that he could have received none, we know from the
event : indeed this is clear from the words following.
That the Apostle had no such opinion of the very
speedy advent of Christ, has been shown before. See
2 Thess. 2, 1 and 2. What, then, is the sense to be
assigned to the émi@avecn? Heinr. after a tedious
minute discussion of the passage, renders: ‘* usque
ad illud tempus, qua constantia tua et virtus praemiis
a J. C. afflicietur dignissimis.” But this is too harsh.
I confess I see no interpretation so probable as that
of the antients and early moderns, and recently Slade,
who take this to signify his death; since that event
is to every one as the coming of the Lord. This
idiom often occurs in the New Testament; and, as
Theophyl. observes, it is here used as being more
impressive than μέχρι τῆς τελευτῆς σου. The same in-
terpretation is adopted by Crell., who has, I think,
better illustrated the sense of the passage than any
other Commentator antient or modern.

15. Now are accumulated the most splendid pre-
dicates of the majesty and power of God; and these
pave the way for the doxology which closes the pas-
sage. (Heinr.)

15. καιροῖς ἰδίοις, “at his own time, that which
seems good to himself.””? Thus it is hinted that this
is unknown to men. Heinr. thinks the words are
intended to quiet the trepidation of some who

thought the advent. of the Messiah was at- hand.
Δείξει, procurabit.

286 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

Of the terms of this glorious doxology, μακάριος
has been treated of at 1,11. Rosenm. compares a
passage of Philo, where God is said to be μακαριωτά-
Tos καὶ πάσης εὐδαιμονίας ἀνάπλεως. ‘The δυνάστης (as
used of the Deus Opt. Max.) is well rendered po-
tentate. ‘The term is so applied in 2 Macc. 3, 24.
πάσης ἐξουσίας δυνάστης, and 12, 15.6 μέγας τοῦ Koopov
δυνάστης, and 15, 23. δυν. τῶν οὐρανῶν: Μόνος is used
as in Rom. 16, 27. μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῴ, and Jud. 25.
1 Cor. 9, 6. 14, 36. and elsewhere. The word is,
indeed, applied to all the attributes of the Deity, to
show that he is so transcendently the possessor of
them, that he alone may be said to possess them.

15. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων, καὶ ἸΚύριος τῶν κυ-
ριευόντων. ‘The Commentators adduce several similar
expressions from the Classical writers ; as Hor.
Carm. 8,1, 5. A&schyl. Pers. 24. βασιλῆς, βασιλέως
ὕποχοι μεγάλουι Hesych. ὕπατε κρειόνων, βασιλεὺς
βασιλευόντων. Philo 2, 187, 5. βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλέων
καὶ θεὸς θεῶν. Valerius Soranus Regum rex ipse De-
usque. Diodor. 1, 55. βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ δεσπότης
δεσποτῶν Σεσόωσις. It seems to have been an epithet
first applied by the piety of the earlier ages to the Su-
preme Governor of the universe, but afterwards
usurped by the pride of earthly monarchs, or as-
cribed to them by base adulation. So that in the
times of the later Greek historians it was regularly
claimed by or attributed to the Roman emperors
and Persian monarchs.

16. ὁ μόνος ἔχον ἀθανασίαν, 1. 6. immortality self
derived ; by which it is implied that he alone can
confer it. So Joh. 5, 26. * hath life in himself.”
Pas οἰκών ἀπρόσιτον. It is observed by Heinr. that
almost all the antients assigned to their God an ha-
bitation in light so dazzling as to be unapproachable
tohuman eyes. Thus Hom. Od. &. 42. and η. 84,
cited by Wets., who adds from Plut. 1, 173, οἱ ποιη-
ταὶ τὸν μὲν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς θεοὺς κατοικεῖν λέγουσι, ἀσῷφα-
λὲς ἕδος καὶ ἀσάλευτον καλοῦντες, οὐ πνεύμασιν, οὐ νέφε-
σιν χρώμενον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰθρίᾳ μαλακὴ καὶ φωτὶ καθαρῷ τὸν

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 287

ἅπαντα χρόνον ὁμαλῶς περιλαμπόμενον. See also
Ezech. 8, 2. and the Targum, cited by Wets. Yet
it may perhaps be better to understand it metaphori-
cally, as expressive of the invisible nature of God,
whose ways are past finding out; as Job. 11, 7.
“canst thou by seeking find out God.” It were
easy to say much more; and the Commentators,
especially Heinr., are not wanting in curious specu-
lations: but upon so awful a subject I forbear.

17. τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὕψη-
λοῴφρονεῖν. From his anxiety with respect to a class
of whose salvation our Lord has strongly expressed
the difficulties, the Apostle adds this earnest in-
junction.

By the πλουσ. ev τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι the Commentators
are agreed is meant, those who possess the riches of
this world, as opposed to the spiritual riches men-
tioned at Matt. 6, 20. 19, 21. Mark 10, 21. Luke
12, 21 and 23. 18, 22. 2 Cor. 8, 9. James 2, 5. Ap.
2,9. Wets. produces similar expressions from the
Rabbins. Μὴ ὑψηλοφρονεῖν, not to be puffed up,
carry themselves haughtily, be, as we familiarly say,
purse-proud. See the note on Rom. 2, 20. Schleus.
refers to R. de Pradoin Pentecont. p. 20., a learned,
but very rare, book. How prone the rich have been
in every age to this vice, the records of history and
antiquity amply testify: but this may be so easily
imagined that the Commentators might have spared
the immense farrago with which they here over-
whelm us. It is such learned lumber as this that
makes our shelves groan under something of less
value than what Gibbon calls “ the weight of Bene-
dictine Fathers.”

It is plain that πλούτου ἀδηλότητι is for ἀδήλῳ
πλούτῳ. How applicable this is to riches (which, as
Horace says, ‘‘ Puncto mobilis hore Permutat Do-
minos, et cedit in altera jura), is obvious. See 11,
44. 1 Cor. 9, 26. 2 Macc. 7, 34. 1 would com-
pare Phocyl. frag. 13, 24. ὁ βίος τρόχος, ἄστατος ὄλβος,
and Eurip. Electr. 940—44.

288 ‘1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

"AAN ἐν τῷ ϑώντι Θεῷ. An epithet often applied
to God, and here especially apposite: for, as Ro-
senm. observes, riches are things inanimate ; God a
Being having life, and the cause of life. Besides, as
Heinr. remarks, life suggests an idea of constancy
and immutability. Compare James 1,17. Ps. 102,
26, seq.

Fi τῷ παρέχοντι, ‘© who confers.”

17. πλουσίως, abundantly. Eis ἀπόλαυσιν. This term
imports not only folerare vitam, but an enjoyment of
existence, at least as far as innocence extends, and
beyond that he has provided that there should be no
real enjoyment. See Acts 14,7. The argument is,
that as God is so bountiful as to satisfy all our wants,
and to some (as the rich) supplies these blessings
πλουσίως, he expects that the rich should imitate his
beneficence by liberally imparting thereof to their
fellow-creatures.

18. ἀγαθοεργεῖν, it is evident from the context, must
signify to confer benefits. And in the use of the
πλουσίοις, πλουσίως, and πλουτεῖν, there is a happy
paronomasia. Tor πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις κοιλοῖς signifies,
to liberally dispense their riches. The words follow-
ing εὐμεταδότους εἶναι, κοινωνικούς are exegetical of the
preceding. Εὐμεταδιδότος εἶναι sionifies literally to
be good at distributing. So Mare. Ant. 1,14. (cited
by “Rosenm.) τὸ εὐμεταδιδοτὸν καὶ εὐποιητικόν. Wets.
adduces an example of ἀγαθοεργία from Etym. Mag.
But he might have given a Classical authority; for I
find the word in Procop. de Ckdif. p. 36. On the senti-
ment I would compare Liban. Orat. 839 8. αὐτομάτοι
πρὸς εὐποίαν οἵἱ Θεοὶ, and Plato de Repub. 696 B. οἱ τῷ
ὄντι πλουσίοι, οὐ χρυσίου, ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸν εὐδαίμονα πλουτεῖν,
ϑωῆς ἀγαθῆς.

The Commentators enlarge still further. But all”
seems too obvious to need much explanation: for as
to understanding κοιν. of affability, as do some an-
tients and moderns, that is destitute of all authority.

9. ἀποθησαυρίξοντας € ἑαυτοὺς θεμέλιον καλὸν ε. τ. [ee
There is here somewhat of harshness (at which the~

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 289

Commentators stumble) arising from a blending of
two metaphors, and a catachresis, by which ἀποθησ. is
put for καταβαλλ. This, however, is not so unfre-
quent with the Apostle as to give any countenance
to the critical conjectures of Bos, Le Clerc, Petit,
Wakef., and others. Now in such a case the best
mode of clearing the sense is, to consider the meta-
phors separately. ᾿Αποθησ. is very applicable to the
preceding ; 4. d. ‘‘let them treasure up durable
riches.” ‘The θεμέλιον will mean, “ for these will
supply a good ground for expecting future happi-
ness.” Theophyl. (from Chrys.) well remarks: ὅπου
θεμέλιον, ἐκεῖ πάντα βέβαια Kal ἀκίνητα" ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ τῆς
ἀρετῆς, καὶ τὰ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰώνος ἐδραῖα, διὰ τοῦτο θε-
μελίου ἐμνήσθη.

The εἰς τὸ μέλλον, Heinr. observes, is opposed to
the ἐν tw νῦν αἰῶνι at ver. 17. And he compares
Matt. 6, 20. There is a similar sentiment in Tob.
4, 9 and 10.; from which some would here read
θέμα. But the Apostle may have had that passage
in mind without exactly following the very ex-
pressions.

The next words suggest the result or tendency of
this ἀγαθοεργία, ἵνα ἐπιλαβ. τ. α. §.; for such, I con-
ceive, is the sense of the ἵνα. Charity to the poor
can only tend, together with other good works, to
gain us acceptance and salvation, through grace;
and this force the ἵνα well expresses. I mention this,
since the passage is perverted by the Popish Com-
mentators to countenance their notion, that charity
to the poor can procure, nay, purchase salvation. The
reading τῆς ὄντως ϑωῆς, which some eminent Com-
mentators prefer, is evidently a paradiorthosis, or
arose from a scholium. _ Whether in ἐπιλάβωνται
there be (as Slade thinks) a third and agonistical
figure in addition to the two former, is doubtful.

20. The warm-hearted and affectionate disposition
of the Apostle again appears in his concluding the
Epistle with another (as it were), apostrophe, and
earnest charge (as at 17.) to avoid what he knew

VOL, VIII. U

290 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI.

circumstances would often bring him in the way of
encountering (for there is here a repetition of the
charge at 4, 7).

20. τὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον, “ preserve the de-
posit committed to thee (by me).” The best Com-
mentators are agreed that παρακαταθήκη signifies the
doctrine of the Gospel committed to him by Paul.
Which may be true, but seems not to be the whole
truth. It may also mean the χάρισμα committed to
him by the laying on of hands at ordination (as supra
4, 14.);* for of this the recipients are said in Scrip-
ture to be stewards. Compare 1 Cor. 4,1. There
may be an allusion (but there is no more) to the
sacredness with which deposits were preserved by
the antients.

20. ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας, “ shun-
ning, avoiding profane vanities and triflings,” 1. 6.
(as the Commentators explain) the ματαιλογία, supra
1, 6. (and thus Suid. explains κενοφωνίας by ματαιο-
φωνίας) ; or rather, as Grot. says, the τοὺς βεβήλους
καὶ γραωδεῖς μύθους at 4, 7. ; for this is no other than
a repetition of the charge there (where see the note).
The ἀντιθέσεις τῆς Wevd. γνώσεως here, however,
throws further light on the sense. In ἀντιθ. are
hinted at the altercations and oppositions which this
false knowledge was sure to engender. So évavriwo.
is used by Philostr. V. Soph. 1, 25,9. Rosenm. ob-
serves that here the things are put for the persons ;
and such Timothy was to avoid. But both seem to
be meant; and there was probably some proneness
in Timothy to this kind of ψευδ, yyws., which ren-
dered it necessary for the Apostle to caution him to
avoid it, and the professors of it. Who these were
we are left .to conjecture: but Tittmann de Vestig.

* Which interpretation, I find, is supported by the authority of
Zonar. Lex. 1510., who explains it (as it should seem) from the an-~
tient Fathers) τὴν χάριν τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος ἣν διὰ τῆς χειροτο-
vias ἐδέξατο. He also notices another interpretation, namely, that
of Theophyl., the commands of Paul to Timothy. But that is far
less suitable to the sense of wapax. and to the context.

1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. VI. 291

Gnost. Opuse. Theolog. p. 25. seems satisfactorily to
have shown that it could not be the Gnostics, whom
Hamm. and others here recognize. There is no
doubt but that the persons in question were Judaizers,
perhaps formerly of the Essenes, who, on having be-
come Christians, and perhaps Christian teachers,
still hankered after their old dogmas, See Benson’s
note on Col. 2, 8, 16. et seqq.

Q1. ἥν τινες ---ἡστόχησαν, “* which (false knowledge)
some who profess, err concerning the faith,” i.e. the
true Christian faith, as opposed to Jewish admixtures.
On jor. see the note on 1,6. The construction περὶ
after aor. is irregular: but the sense, rather than
the metaphor, is kept in view. Ἢ χάρις, grace, 1. 6.
the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ.

v2

292

SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

CHAP. I.

Verse 1. Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελή-
ματος Θεοῦ. A very usual mode with St. Paul of
commencing his Epistles. But in the words κατὶ
ἐπαγγελίαν ϑωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, ᾿Τησοῦ this introductory
salutation differs from the rest, and on its sense
Commentators are not agreed. Some take it for σὺν
exayy. ϑωῆς, “ to whom is a promise of life.” But
that is too harsh. Benson renders the κατὰ in re-
spect to. I prefer in order to; for I think, with
Heinr., that it indicates the end and tendency of
his Apostleship. The ϑωῆς (which signifies eternal
life), Benson thinks is levelled at the Jews; and
the év ‘I. X., at the Judaizers. But such fancied
allusions are often vain and hypothetical; and in an
introductory salutation of this kind it were unrea-
sonable to suppose them.

On ver. 2. see the note on 1 Tim. 1, 2.

3. χάριν ἔχω τῷ Θεῴ---μέρας. The χάριν ἔχω sig-
ΡΝ 1 τάμα God a ΤΥ Mane Toni
Thess. 1, 2. and 2 Thess. 1, 3. “Q λατρεύω ἀπὸ προ-
γόνων ἐ. kK. o. The ἀπὸ προγόνων is, by Schleus., con-
sidered as synonymous with ἐκ παιδὸς. But the
common interpretation, from my forefathers, i.e.
after them and by their example, seems to deserve
the preference. Others may be seen in the Com-
mentators. ‘This is supposed to be levelled against
the Jews, who accused him of abandoning the God

2. TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. ; 293

of his fore-fathers. He therefore hints that there. is
the same God worshipped under both covenants.

3. ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. The scope of this phrase
is not very clear, and therefore has been variously
explained. If λατρεύω signifies (as I think it here
must), “whom I serve and have served,” the καθ.
συν. must have a reference to his state before he was
converted to the Christian faith; and probably this
may be an indirect denial of the charge made against
him by the Jews, that he had never acted from con-
scientious motives, either before or since his conver-
sion. He means to say that he had always acted
uprightly and conscientiously ; though, before his
conversion, erroneously. Such is the view of the
sense taken by the antients* and, of the moderns,
Whitby, Benson, and others. And it seems the
best founded. ‘They aptly compare Acts 22, 3. &
23,1. “1 have lived in all good conscience before
God until this day.” See more in Whitby. Benson
and Mackn. think he meant to reflect on the Ju-
‘daizers, as having themselves put away conscience
as well as faith. But this is uncertain.

8. ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σου μνείαν ἐ. τ. ὃ.,
“ How unceasingly I make mention of thee in my
prayers.” Heinr. puts ws ἀδιαλ.---πληρωθώ in a pa-
renthesis ; and he would take ws in the sense of
siquidem, and as synonymous with ὅτι. Rosenm. in-
terprets, “ that I have good reason for making men-
tion,’ &c. And he remarks that verbs of action
are often taken of what ought to be. Upon the
whole, the sense is tolerably clear, though the phrase--
ology and construction may be perplexed : and there
is nothing in the common interpretation that need
offend, if the words be not unduly pressed upon.

3. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, “αὖ all the regular returns of
prayer, or, as often as, whenever 1 offer up my
prayers.”

* Thus Theophyl.: My ὑποπτεύσῃς pe ἄλλα φρονεῖν καὶ ἄλλα
λέγειν" καθαρόν μοί ἐστι τὸ συνειδὸς, ὥσπερ ἀεὶ, καὶ viv" ov ψεύ-
δομαι τοίνυν λέγων ὅτι φιλῶ σε, καὶ ἀεὶ μεμνημαί cov.

294, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

4. μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων, ““ being mindful
of thy tears,” namely (as most Commentators think)
at parting with Paul. See Acts 20, 37. It is rightly
observed by Theophyl., that these words are paren-
thetical ; and that Seas FETE and # ἵνα χαρᾶς
πληρωθῶ are connected.

5. ὑπόμνησιν λαμβάνων τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως,
for ὑπομνησκόμενο. An uncommon, and perhaps
provincial mode of expression. ᾿Ανυποκρ. mior., “ sin-
cere and unfeigned faith.” ᾿Ενώκησε ἐν, inheesit.
“ς So said (observes Est.), to signify the stability of
it.” But there may be an allusion to the spiritual
grace which accompanied and produced it. So Col.
3, 16. ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμήν. Or ἐνοικ.
may here be simply for ἐνειμι. The καὶ, as corre-
sponding to πρῶτον, may be rendered deinde autem.
Μάμμῃ, grandmother. A term censured by the
Greek Grammarians, but used by good authors.
See Wets. On the var. lect. edvixy I would refer to
the Commentators on Theocr. Id. 20, 1.

At ὅτι must be repeated, not SoG, but ἐνοικεῖ
and ἐνοικήσει, * doth and will dwell.” This accom-
“modation of a verb is frequent.

6. δύ ἣν--- χειρῶν μου, ““ For which reason (namely,
that it may continue to dwell), I remind and exhort
thee,” &c. ᾿Αναξωπυρεῖν signifies, properly, to stir
up, blow up, as it were, keep alive a dull fire; and
hence, metaphorically, to rouse sluggishness, and
eall into action any dormant faculty, whether of
body or mind. See Wetstein’s examples.

Now he was to stir up and call into action the
τὸ χάρισμια----χειρῶν. This χάρισμα is taken by many
Commentators (as Rosenm. and Heinr -)s to mean
no more than fortitude, courage, rappyoia; for Ti-
mothy, they observe, seems to “have been of a timid
disposition, and to have needed an impulse and ex-
citement from a more powerful mind. Which may
be true; but the interpretation seems a needless and
unwarrantable refinement. ‘The antient Commen-
tators, and the earlier moderns, have rightly seen

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 205

that it must mean the supernatural gifts of the Holy
Spirit, imparted by Paul at his ordination, in order
to fit him for his office ; though I must doubt whe-
ther it includes a power of working miracles, which
seems to have been confined to the Apostles. This
χάρισμα, then, he was to rouse to renewed vigour
and activity. For, as Theophyl. observes, ὥσπερ τὸ
πῦρ δεῖται ξύλων, οὕτω καὶ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Πνεύματος δεῖται
προθυμίας, καὶ προσοχῆς, καὶ νήψεως, ἵνα ἀεὶ ἀναξέη" ὡς
ἐὰν μὴ ταῦτα παρώσι, σβέννυται, ὡς καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ λέγει"
Τὸ πνεῦμα py σβέννυτε. So Theodoret: καθάπερ τὸ
ἔλαιον τῆς λαμπάδος τὴν φλόγα TPodporepay ἐργάϑεται,
οὕτως ἡ καλὴ τῆς ψυχῆς προθυμία τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύμιαι-
τος τὴν χάριν ἐφέλκεται.

This sense οἵ ἀναμιμνήσκειν, by which it signifies
to remind, admonish, is very rare. ‘The term seems
to have been here used from delicacy, since it is not
so strong a one as παρακαλέω. In such a case the
Classical writers unite παρακαλεῖν with it. An ex-
ample from Plut. 2, 33. is adduced by Schleus.

7. οὐ yap—cwdpovicpot. The Apostle here hints
at the faculty which especially required rousing,
namely, his courage. Here we have the use of ἡμῖν
for cos; which figure (κοίνωσις) is frequent in the
Apostle. The phraseology, however, is somewhat
obscure, and thus has been variously interpreted.
Some take the δυν. of the power of working miracles,
and σωφρονισμοῦ of the teaching of the Spirit. But
though this is maintained, with ability, by Whitby,
it is somewhat precarious. His note, however, de-
serves attentive perusal. Neither can I approve of
πνεῦμια δειλίας being taken simply for animus timidus ;
and πνεῦμα δυνάμεως, animus fortis. The whole dif-
ficulty (1 conceive) arises from the extreme brevity
of the phraseology. And the sense is best expressed
by Theophyl. thus: οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ἐλάθομεν τὸ πνεῦμα,
ἵνα ὑποστελλώμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα δυνατοὶ ὦμεν πρὸς τοὺς πει-
ρασμοῦς, καὶ παῤῥησιαξϑώμιεθα. He interprets the ἀγά-
ays of “love to God and man, as inwrought by
‘Divine στᾶσα." The cadgovicpov he paraphrases):

296. 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

ἵνα σώφρονες ὦμεν, καὶ ὑγιεῖς τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ ἐν καταόσ-
τάσει. The whole passage is well paraphrased by
Theodoret thus: Tod παναγίου yap Πνεύματος τὴν
χάριν δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὺς, οὐχ ἵνα δειλιῶμεν τοὺς ὑπὲρ
τῆς εὐσεβίας κινδύνους, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα θείας δυνάμεως ἐμφορού-
μένοι, θερμῶς μὲν αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσωμεν, σωφρονίσωμεν δὲ
τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν κινουμένων παθημάτων τὴν ἀταξίαν.

How opposite this σωφρ. is to that fanatical spirit
by some regarded as the highest ministerial endow-
ment, it is easy to see. Benson observes that by
“having the spirit” they could not only work mi-
racles, but, if they rightly improved that extraordi-
nary illumination, it produced the moral virtues of
fortitude, benevolence, and discretion.

8. μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῆς---αὐτοῦ. ‘The Apostle now
expresses his meaning more clearly, and hints that
this δειλία had been evinced by not coming to Rome,
Jest he should be involved in the persecution of his
master. And then, in along drawn, but beautiful
passage, he sets before him the momentous nature of
that for which he is called upon to encounter perse-
cution, namely, the salvation to be attained by the
gracious calling of God, who hath abolished death,

ndebrought life and immortality to light by the
spel. ‘Thus, he shows, there is no reason to fear
or decline persecution. Such is, I conceive, the
general scope of the passage.

Μαρτύριον may denote either the doctrine itself, or
the profession of it, or both. δέσμιος αὐτοῦ, * a pri-
soner on his account, in his cause.” So Theophyl.,
dv αὐτὸν. Compare Phil. 3, 1., where see the note.
And elsewhere the Apostle says, ‘‘ 1 am not ashamed
of the cross of Christ.” Theophyl. finely paraphrases :
‘¢ If Christ was not ashamed of the cross, how can I
be ashamed of these bonds ?”

The words συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ x. ὃ. O.
are obscure from their brevity. There are two ways
in which they may be taken, both of which had
occurred to the antients. Thus .Theophyl. (after
Chrys.) paraphrases : μὴ ἁπλῶς δείξης, ὅτι οὐκ exaic-

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 297

χύνη, ἀλλὰ TH πείρᾳ Kal διὰ τῶν ἔργων, καὶ κοινωνὸς
γενοῦ καὶ τῷ Xpiorw καὶ ἐμοὶ τῶν αὐτῶν. He then ob-
serves, that as the Gospel cannot itself be said κακο-
παθεῖν, we may either take τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ for διὰ τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον, “for the Gospel’s sake : or by evayy.
understand all the preachers of it; 4. 4. συγκακοπά-
θησον τοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίους The former method is
adopted by most modern Commentators, as Wolf,
Rosenm., Heinr., Schleus., and Mackn.; but the
latter, which is adopted by Grot., Est., and others,
including Valpy, seems the more natural and easy.
This kind of prosopopwia is frequent in the Apostle.
The συγκακοπαθ. must not be confined to Paul, but
extended to all the preachers of the Gospel.

8. κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ, “ according to, in dependance
on, by the use of.” So Theophyl.: τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ
Θεοῦ. A somewhat unusual sense of κατὰ, in the
use of which preposition the Apostle allows himself
much license.

9, 10. τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς, Kal καλέσαντος κλήσει
ἁγίᾳ. By σωσ., the best Commentators are agreed,
is meant put into the way of salvation. See the note
on Matt.1,21. Kaa. κλήσει ἁγίᾳ, see Gal. 1, 6. and
the note. The ay. may be compared with the 7 ἄνω
κλῆσις, Phil. 3, 14., and the κλῆσις ἐπουράνιος, Heb.
8, 1. Nor is there (as Heinr. fancies) any imitation
of Jewish phraseology. ‘The epithet respects the
purpose of that calling, namely, ‘‘ to make us holy
and therefore happy, and raise us to heaven.” I am
surprised that the Commentators (who treat this
point in a very perfunctory manner) should not have
thought of comparing 1 Pet. 1, 15., which is the
best commentary on the passage: ‘“ As he who hath
called you is holy, so be ye holy,” &c.

The next words show that this salvation is not of
works but of grace: a doctrine which the Apostle
often inculcates (as Eph. 2, 8. Tit. 3, 5., &c.), and
it is here very aptly introduced, since there was the
more reason for Timothy not to decline persecution

298 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

or toil in the cause of Him by whom he had been
saved wholly by grace. ἹΠρόθεσιν is for προαίρεσιν.
See Eph. 3,11. Rom. 9,11. and the note. Heinr.
observes that διδόναι is for ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι. But there
is much meaning in this use: for what is promised
or intended by God may, in a manner, from its cer-
tainty, be regarded as already given. ΦΦανερωθεῖσαν
refers to χάριν.

10. καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον----εὐαγγελίου. Theo-
phyl. well paraphrases: Ev τῷ οἰκείω σώματι κατήρ-
γησεν ἐμπράκτως τὸν θάνατον, ἀφθαρτίσας αὐτὸ ἡμᾶς δὲ
ἐφώτιϑε διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλπίϑειν τὴν ϑωὴν καὶ τὴν
ἀφθαρσίαν, οὐ γὰρ ἤδη ἡμεῖς ἠφθαρτίσθημεν ἐνεργείᾳ,
ἀλλὰ μέλλομεν, καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
ἡμῖν ἐβεβαίωσεν. “ The Apostle (says Benson)
is not speaking of the immortality of the soul,
but of the resurrection of the dead, and the con-
sequent state of incorruption and immortality; a
state wherein this corruptible body shall become
incorruptible, and death so entirely abolished as
to have place no more.” ‘“ He hath (says Mackn.)
deprived death of its power to continue mankind
in the state of the dead. By submitting to death,
he hath procured for all men a resurrection from
the dead; and for the righteous, an eternal life
in the body after the resurrection. Hence the
Apostle telleth us, Heb. 2, 14., the Son of God
partook of flesh and blood, that through death,
καταργησῇ, he might destroy him who had the power
of death.” In Saiv καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν there is thought
to be an hendiadis. The sense of the words is
admirably illustrated by Whitby in loc. See also
Tillots. Serm. 3, 112., and Warburton’s Divine Le-
gation, vol. 1. et passim.

On φωτίσαντος I would compare Arrian Epict.
1,4. 5. f. τῷ δὲ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εὑρόντι καὶ φωτίσαντι.

11. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην---ἐθνῶν. The εἰς is well rendered
whereunto (so the Classical ἐφ᾽ ὅπερ) ; for it regards
all the preceding. Compare a similar passage at

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 1. 299

1 Tim. 2, 7. St. Paul calls himself ἀποστολὸς ἐθνῶν,
since to their salvation his labours were chiefly
(though not entirely) devoted.

12. οἶδα γὰρ, &c. Heinr. observes, that the words
of this involved sentence may be thus digested: οἷδα
γὰρ καὶ πέπαισμαι, ὅτι (ἐκεῖνος Θεὸς), ᾧ πεπίστευκα τὴν
παραθήκην μου, δυνατός ἐστι, φυλάξαι ταύτην τὴν παρ.
μου εἰς εκ. τ. 4. The sense of the παραθήκην is ob-
scure, and variously interpreted, even by the an-
tients. Thus Theophyl. first explains it τὴν πίστιν
καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα : but then he adds, that it may signify
the persons whom He had brought to Christ, or the
ἀντιμισθίαν, which is said to be laid up with God for
the righteous. See Col. 1, 5. and 2Tim. 4.8. Of
these expositions the first alone deserves atten-
tion, and it has been adopted by many eminent
moderns. See Rosemn., Mackn., Pyle, Schleus.,
and Jaspis. Yet it seems too harsh; and I cannot
but prefer the interpretation of those (as Whitby,
Benson, Fessel, Bos, Capel], Krebs, and Slade) who
understand it of the soul. So Benson: “1 suffer,
and am in near prospect of a violent death; but I
am not ashamed. For I know very well whom I
have trusted with my soul. And am firmly per-
suaded that he is able to keep that depositum of
mine, and to restore it safe unto me, in the judg-
ment of the great day.” It is truly remarked by
Slade, that the phrase τὴν παραθήκην pov, more usually
signifies, ‘“‘ what I have deposited with another,”
than, ‘‘ what another has deposited with me.” Ac-
cordingly, in ver. 14. and 1 Tim. 6, 20., it is τὴν
παρακαταθήκην Φύλαξον, and not τὴν παρακαταθήκην
σου. And further, since the Apostle there speaks of
Timothy keeping the deposit which was entrusted
to him, it is fair to presume, that since God is here
spoken of as keeping the deposit, it means the depo-
sit entrusted to Him. Thus 1 Pet. 4,19. ws πιστῷ
κτιστῇ παρατιβέσθωσαν ras ψυχὰς ἑαυτῶν. :

The expression “ that day,” is often used, as here,
kar’ ἐξοχὴν, to denote the day of judgment. And

300 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I.

this idiom (as Heinr. observes) arose from its being
the subject of daily conversation among the Chris-
tians of that age.

13. troturwow— yoo. Now follow some exhor-
tations, first a more general one, founded on the
excellence of the religion itself, and then some more
special ones. On uzorur. see the note on 1 Tim.
1,16. The construction of the whole verse is thus
laid down by Rosenm.: ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν ὑγιαινόντων
λόγων, ὧν παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἔχε ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπη.
And he renders: “Summam doctrinarum saluber-
rimarum, quas edoctus es a me, retine cum fide et
charitate, que huic doctrine Christi conformis est.’’
On vy. Avy. see the note on 1 Tim. 1, 10. and 6, 3.
“ He was to hold fast (observes Benson) even the
form of sound words, which he had received from
the Apostle, not only in faith, or with fidelity; but
with dove and charity towards all honest minds;
though they might not have so much knowledge as
he had; or might differ from him in some par-
ticulars.”

14. τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην---ἦμῖν. The same
sentiment, in other words. By the παρακατ. must
be understood the deposit of sound Gospel doctrine
committed to him by Paul. The sense of διὰ πνεύ-
patos ἁγίου, is strangely lowered by some moderns
from Benson downwards, who interpret it, “ἃ holy
disposition :”? which is harsh and unsuitable to the
context ; and though Benson refers to supra ver. 5.
and Col. 3, 16., yet neither passage has any such
sense. (See the notesthere.) I cannot but acquiesce
in the antient and common interpretation, ‘“ by the
aid of the Holy Spirit, and not by human strength
only.”

15. oidas τοῦτο---ἰΑσίᾳ. After these premises, the
Apostle proposes to him examples, partly for warn-
ing and partly for imitation. (Heinr.) The οἶδας
τοῦτο ὅτι, 15 rendered by Rosenm. pufo scire te. But
the τοῦτο, used in conjunction with the ὅτι is, by no
means without force, Angl. This you know, that,

Q TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 301

ἄς. ᾿Απεστράφησαν does not so much mean have
abandoned the religion, as, are alienated from me, as
it should seem, from a cowardly fear of participating
in his persecution. By Asta is supposed to be meant
Ephesus, and the vicinity. But it must at least de-
note the whole of Jonia, of which Ephesus was the
capital. And so it is taken at Acts 16, 6., and many
other passages adduced by Schleus., who observes,
that Strabo, L. 14. applies this name to Ionia only.

The πάντες may be taken popularly for permulti,
in a manner all. “Ὧν is for ἐξ dv. Of Phygellus
and Hermogenes nothing certain is known. Ec-
clesiastical tradition, however, affords some infor-
mation.

16. δῴη ἔλεος ---οἴκω. A brief mode of expres-
sion for, ‘*this did not Onesiphorus, whose family
may the Lord, &c. Ἔλεος, ‘ beneficium:” for ac-
cording to the Scriptural usage God’s benefits are
called his mercies, to hint our unworthiness of them.
This Onesiphorus, Rosenm. thinks was a freedman,
and from what the Apostle says at 4, 19., was then
_ dead. Or, as Benson observes, the Apostle knew he
was not then at Ephesus.

᾿Ανέψυξε. See the note on Col. 4, 11. The me-
taphor, Rosenm. thinks, is derived from those who
are overcome with thirst; but I should rather think
heat. It seems to properly signify, “ bring a per-
son to life again (ἀνα) who is fainting with heat by
fanning him. And so (I find) Heinr.

16. τὴν ἅλυσιν pov οὐκ ἐπησχύνθη, ““ He was not
ashamed of my chain.” A figurative expression for,
“6 was not ashamed of mea prisoner.” Rosenm.
cites Cicero in Lelio: ‘‘ quam graves, quam diffici-
les plerisque videntur calamitatum societates! ad
quas non est facilé inventus qui descendat.” The
same sentiment occurs.more than once in the
Psalms.

17, 18. γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ, “ when he was in
Rome ;” whither business would often bring the
inhabitants of so commercial a city as Ephesus.

302 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

Theophyl. renders: οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἔφυγέ μου τὴν συντυ-
χίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεϑήτησέ με, καὶ εὗρεν ὅ μεγάλης ἀν-
δρείας καὶ πίστεως. ‘The words Δῴη---ἡμέρᾳ are pa-
renthetical. Εὑρεῖν signifies to obtain. "ἔλεος ac-
ceptance and salvation. Ev ἐκείνη ἡμέρᾳ, the day of
judgment; as supra, ver. 12. The repetition of
Κυρίου instead of αὐτοῦ, is regarded by Rosem. as a
Hebraism. And he compares Joh. 11, 22. and
Susan. 55. So Theophyl. and many moderns.
Some antients, however, and moderns, as Wetstein,
take the first Κυρίου to denote God the Father; and
the second, God the Son. And Wets. refers to
Gen. 15, 27s 5, 1. 9,06 ἃ 10. 19, 94. 85,1. Ex. 16;
7 & 29. 31, 8. 35, 31. 1 Kings 8, 1. 12, 21. 2 Chron.
11, 1. Num. 10, 29. Ifthe Apostle intended this,
the passage would strengthen the doctrine of the
Trinity.

At ὅσα must be understood kara. And διηκόνησε
must, from the context, refer not (as some say) to
the Christians at large, but to the Apostle himself.
Βέλτιον has not the comparative force, but signifies
very well.

On this passage the Romanists found their prac-
tice of praying for the dead. For they infer from
4, 19. that Onesiphorus was dead. But that is
very uncertain; and if it were the case, this can
hardly be called a prayer. It may rather be re-
garded as a pious wish.

CHAP. II.

_ VER. 1. ov οὖν, τ. ry evduvapod ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. ‘The same exhortation is repeated.
It had already occurred, ch. 1, 6, 7, 8, 18 ἃ 14.
We may observe, however, that the Apostle has
always brought it forward in different words, and
under different images. (Heinr.) The οὖν is well
paraphrased by Theodoret ταῦτα εἰδὼς, “ knowing
this defection, and the dangers above adverted to.”
Ενδυν., strengthen thyself. Heinr. here, comparing

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 303

Eph. 6, 10., drily remarks that this is one of those
words by which constancy and firmness in retaining
anew religion is denoted; as στηρίϑεσθαι, Gal. 5.,
— βεβαιοῦσθαι, Hebr. 13, 9., &c. The χάριτι both he
and Rosenm. take to mean the munus Apostolicum.
But nothing can be more harsh. Neither is the
interpretation of Benson much better, “ strengthen
yourself in true Christianity.”’ The ἐν is plainly
taken for the Hebr. 3, by the means of: and the an-
tient and common interpretation alone bears the
stamp of truth. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.): μὴ
μόνον ἀπὸ τοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ ὑποδείγματος ἐνδυναμοῦ, ἀλλὰ
μάλιστα διὰ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ ἐκεινὴν ἔχε
συναγωνιϑομιένην, δι’ ἧς, Χο. And Theodoret: στῆθι
ἀνδρείως" ὑπερείδει γὰρ σε τοῦ Κυρίου ἡ χάρις. So also
Doddr.: “in humble dependence upon divine
grace.”

2. καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας---ἀνθρώποις. The Commentators,
antient and modern, have been not a little perplexed
with the διὰ πολλών μαρτύρων. Some take it of the
law and the Prophets. Others, as Theodoret, ex-
plain: ἅπερ ἤκουσάς μου πολλοὺς διδάσκοντος. So
Theophyl. and QCicumen.: οὐ λάθρα, ἀλλὰ μετὰ
παῤῥησίας, πολλῶν παρόντων. Which is preferable
to some other interpretations (as the visionary one
of Mackn.), and may represent the true sense: but
I am inclined to adopt that of Vatab., Beza, Est.,
Wolf, Rosenm., and Heinr., who think the Apostle
has reference to the solemn ordination of Timothy
to the episcopal office, alluded to at 1 Tim. 1, 18,
4, 14.6, 12. 2 Tim. 1, 6., and which was, no doubt,
accompanied with a public charge (for such seems to
be meant by the ἃ ἤκουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ), the substance
of which he desires may be repeated to others. The
witnesses were the presbyters present, and perhaps
the congregation. See the notes on the above cited
passages.

The metaphor in raga, is similar to that in rapa-
θήκη, Or παρακαταθήκη, supra 1, 14. 1 Pet. 4, 19. and
elsewhere. The ricros and ἑτέρους, &c. advert to the

304 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

two principal qualifications requisite, fidelity and
fitness for teaching. So Theophyl.: διδακτικοῖς. See
1 ΤΊ. 8,.2. and 2 Tim. 2) 24;

38. σὺ οὖν κακοπάθησον---Χοιστοῦ. Here we have
plainly a military metaphor. Kaats signifies δοκιμὸς.
Rosenm. refers to Poll. 1,11. The Commentators
aptly compare 1 Tim. 1, 1, 18. τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν
στρατεύειν, and 6, 12. τὸν καλὸν ἁγὼν aywvigew.* But
many are the duties of the soldier besides fighting
(and such κακοπαθεῖν is often employed by the Greek
Historians to denote); and when we take the admo-
nition συγκακοπάθησον τώ εὐαγγελίῳ, supra 1,8.(where
see the note,) in conjunction with this, we shall see
that the Apostle here adverts to the labours of pro-
pagating as well as defending the Gospel. Nor can
I recognise, with Heinr., an agonistical allusion.

4. οὐδεὶς στρατευόμιενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ βίου mpay-
ματείαις. ‘The στρατ. is emphatical; “Νο one who
warreth,” &c. "Ἐμπλέκεται, middle voice, entangleth
himself with, engages in. ‘The rod βίου πραγ. may
very well be rendered, the business of life, traffic and
commutation of every kind. Tod βίου does not
merely mean (as Heinr. explains) ad vitam toleran-
dam, but, in a general way, to use the words of Cicero
de Offic. 2, 11., ad rem gerendam.

The fact is proved by Wetstein’s citations. ‘Thus
it is said in a Novella of the Civilians, “ indigna est
et pudenda armato viro negotiatio. And so Ambros

* JT add Valer. Max. L. 8, 5. Carneades laboriosus et diuturnus
sapientie miles. Juncus ap, Stob. Sermon. 594. 5, ὥσπερ καλὸς
ἀθλήτης, ἃς, Max. Tyr. Diss. 3. p. 32. νόει μοι στρατηγόν μὲν τὸν
Θεὸν, στρατείαν δὲ τὴν Cuny, ἀπλίτην δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. And the
same metaphor is used by ‘Theophr. Cornic. ap. Athen. 562 Fr. The
sentiment may be illustrated from Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 35. (p. 43.) rov
ἄνδρα ἡγοῦμαι τὸν σόφον πλείω κινδυνεύειν, ἢ οἱ πλέοντές τε Kal
ξὺν ὅπλοις μαχόμενοι φθόνος γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν στείχει; καὶ σιωπῶντα,
καὶ φθεγγόμενον; καὶ ξυντείνοντα, καὶ ἀνιέντα, κἂν παρέλθῃ ri’ κἂν
προσέλθῃ τῳ, κἂν προσείπῃ, κἂν μὴ προσείπῃ" δεῖ δέ πέφραχθαι τὸν
ἄνδρα, γινώσκειν τε ὡς ἀργίας μὲν ἡττηθεὶς ὁ σόφος, ἢ χολῆς, ἢ
ἔρωτος, ἢ φιλοποσίας, ἢ ἑτοιμότερόν τι τοῦ καιροῦ πράξᾳς, ἴσως ἂν
καὶ ξυγγνώμην φέροιτοι" χρήμασι δὲ ὑποθεὶς ἑαυτὸν, οὔτ᾽ ἂν ξυγγι-
γνῴσκοιτο; καὶ μισοῖτ᾽ ἂν, ὡς ὁμοῦ πάσας κακίας συνειληφώς.

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 305

de Offic. 1, 86. Is qui imperatori militat, a suscep-
tionibus litium, actu forensium negotiorum, vendi-
tione mercium prohibetur.* |

The argument (Rosenm. observes) drawn from a
secular warfare is, ἃ fortiori, applicable to the spiri-
tual. Besides, if (as we learn from Acts 6, 5.) “ it
was not reasonable ministers should leave the work
of God, and serve tables,” how much less so for them
to be engaged in far less justifiable pursuits! Deeply
is it to be lamented that there should be any indivi-
duals amongst our own body so far absorbed in se-
cular occupations, and engrossed in ignoble pursuits
(see Joseph. 127, 32—42. and 1286.) as to possess
little leisure, and less inclination, to prosecute those
professional studies which can alone enable them
“rightly to divide the word of truth,” or successfully
“to contend for the faith once delivered to the
saints.”

4. ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ, “ that he may
approve himself unto,” &c. The στρατολογ. signi-
fies literally the person who enlisted him, i. e. the
Imperator, or Dux. The application is obvious. It
is not, however, necessary, with Heinr., to consider
Paul as the orpar., but Jesus Christ. For soldiers,
though enlisted by any officer, are only enlisted in
the name of the commander in chief, or monarch with
whom their engagement is really made.

5. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλη---ἀθλήση. On the military allu
sion the Apostle engrafts an agonistical metaphor.
The sense is: ‘* Thus also, if any one contend, or be
an athlete, he does not gain the prize, unless he con-
tend in the regular way.” The νομίμως (I conceive)
refers not only to the laws regulating the mode in
which the candidates should contest, but also the
rules laid down, and enforced by the trainers, with-
out the observance of which there was no chance of

* Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. ὡς ἐν παρατάξει, μηποτ᾽ ἀπερίσπαστον
εἶναι δεῖ, ὅλον πρὸς τῇ διακονίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ---οὐ προσδεδεμένον καθή-
κουσιν ἰδιωτικοῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐμπεπλεγμένον σχέσεσιν.

VOL. VIII. >. 4

306 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

gaining the prize.* This is especially illustrated
from the Classical writers from Grot. and Wets.
Thus Galen: οἱ νομίμως ἀθλοῦντες. Arrian. Epict. 3,
16. εἰ νομίμως ἤθλησας. The words γόμιμος and νομί-
μως were also applied to soldiers. Not only did ἃ
candidate fail of gaining the prize, but he was dis-
graced, and sometimes punished. See Herod. 8, 59.
where consult Wass and Valckn.

6. τὸν κοπιῶντα ---- μεταλομβάνειν. The Apostle
again changes the metaphor, and that to the hus-
bandman. Similar ones are found in 1 Cor. 9, 10.
Hebr. 0, 7. and James ὅ, 7.1 The construction is
here somewhat harsh; insomuch that critical con-
jectures have been resorted to; yet unnecessarily,
though the obscurity has occasioned some diversity
of interpretation. Our Common Version renders :
“The husbandman that laboureth must be first
partaker of the fruits.” And this is supported by
the antients and some moderns. But the sense is
very harsh and inapposite. For (as Doddr. observes)
whether the husbandman wasto receive the fruits first,
was not the point in question. And (as Wolf remarks)
the Apostle does not so much call Timothy’s atten-
tion to the fruits to be expected or received from
his labours, as he exhorts him to order and diligence
in his office. I must therefore acquiesce in the opi-
nion of Grot., Erasm., Beza, Schmid, Gataker, Ca-~
pell., Wolf, and most recent Commentators, that
there is here a transposition, and the πρῶτον must be
taken with the preceding κοπιώντα, not the following
μεταλαμβάνειν. It was (as Doddr. says) the Apostle’s

* So Theophyl.: οὐκ ἐὰν εἰς τὸν ἀγῶνα εἰσέλθῃ, ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο οὐδὲ
ἐὰν ἀλείψηται, οὐδὲ ἐὰν συμπλακῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὴ καὶ τοὺς περὶ βρω-
μάτων καὶ πωμάτων, καὶ σωφροσύνης" ἀθλητικοὺς νόμους φυλάξῃ, καὶ
τοὺς ἐν τῷ πρόπῳ τῆς πάλης.

+ “ The inhabitants of Judza spent much of their time in the
cultivation of corn, olives, and vines, and lived much in the open
air; hence (it should seem) the frequent allusions of the sacred
writers to rural scenery and rural occupation,” (Dr. Maltby in his
Notes to his Second Volume of Sermons.)

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. I. 307

purpose to remind ‘Timothy that the labour of the
husbandman must precede the harvest.

7. νοει---πᾶσιν. These examples the Apostle fol-
lows up with earnest admonition, and affectionate
wish and prayer.

The reading δώσει, put by Griesb. nearly on a
footing with the textual one, is a mere emendation
from some who stumbled at the γὰρ, which, however,
may be regarded as almost pleonastic. Wolf has
satisfactorily shown that that reading is indefensible.

7. ἐν πᾶσιν “in all things ;? both words and works.
SoCicumen. Σύνεσιν, spiritual understanding.

8. μνημιόνευε---εὐαγγέλιόν μου. ‘This seems to be a
continuation of the above admonition at we ἃ λέγω;
(the δώη---πᾶσιν being, in some measure, parenthe-
tical) ; by the use of other arguments, namely, de-
rived from the resurrection of Christ, &c. The
words are well paraphrased by Rosenm.: ‘ If tribu-
jations befall me or thee, remember that Jesus
Christ who suffered »n ignominious death, was raised
again by God to a glorious life. Such will be our
case if we remain stedfast and undaunted.”

8. κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλλιον μου, ““ according to the Gos-
pel taught you by me;” as contrasted with that of
the Judaizers. See Benson. Ἔν ᾧ κακοπαθώ, “in the
cause of which I labour, travail, and encounter
peril.” For κακ. must be taken in the same extent of
signification as supra ver. 3. Grot. thinks the word
also includes the idea of patient endurance. Μέχρι
δεσμῶν, “ Said exaggeranter (observes Rosenm.) ;
since this confinement was the φυλακὴ aderpos.” But
that (as I have shown on the Acts) is a point very
undetermined. ‘The word, however, was often ap-
plied to any imprisonment, whether in fetters or not.
Qs, “as if I were.”

The turn at ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται is very
skilful, and would not have been unworthy of De-
mosthenes himself. Rosenm. paraphrases: “ it will
always be propagated, though I am in bonds.” And

x 2

“pe

308 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

so Wolf. But the meaning must rather be: ‘ the
word of God, as regards me.” And so Theodoret.
The other sense, however, may be included. Schliting
and Benson have alone seen the scope of the words,
namely, ‘‘ that is my comfort and your's.”

10. διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω. ‘Lhe διὰ τοῦτο is by
some referred to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ; by others, to οὐ δέδε-
ται; q. d. in order that this should not be bound I
bear all things.” Benson interprets: “as the Gos-
pel is at liberty.’ Others otherwise. , But perhaps
it merely answers to the Hebr. }y2?, which has
sometimes little perceptible meaning, as seems to be
the case with the διὰ τοῦτο ; for the sense is complete .
without it. There may, however, be included an
elliptical force, to be thus supplied: “ And why do
I bear all things? For this, namely, for the elect’s
sake, &c. Rosenm. supposes an asyndeton, and sup-
plies kai at 1 Cor. 11,10. I would point thus: Διὰ
τοῦτο πᾶντα ὑπομενῶ, διὰ, χα. Rosenm. paraphrases:
“omnia sustineo: quia nempe confido, Christum
mihi vincto etiam adfuturum, caussam meam tuitu-
rum, et me, ipsius gratia patientem, honoribus, pre-
miis atque splendore sic decoraturum esse, ut me
perpessionis pudere aut poenitere non possit.” But
this cannot (I think) be the sense intended. For (as
Theophyl. observes) the Apostle means to say that
he suffers this not so much for himself, as for the
salvation of others.. And so Gicumen. Ἔν X., by
Christ. Mera δόξης αἰωνίου, “together with eternal
glory.” Rosenm., strangely, interprets the words, as
if they related to the present advantages only of the
Gospel; which the μετὰ δόξης aiwy. forbids. So
Theophyl.: οὐ μόνον ἵνα σωθώσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μεῖφον, ἵνα
καὶ δοξασθώσι pel ἡμών αἰωνίως.

By the τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς the best antient and modern
Interpreters are agreed is meant, ald faithful Chris-
tians, not the Gentile Christians only, as Benson sup-
poses. ‘Though it should seem that the Apostle did
not mean to include the Judaizers, since they were

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 309

not faithful, and therefore not elect. The καὶ αὐτοὶ
(which is strangely misunderstood by some) simply
means, they as well as myself.

11. mioros—oveiconev. The article here stands
for the pronoun demonstrative, 4. d. this is a saying
of undoubted certainty (a formula occurring also at
1 Tim. 1 15. 3, 1. 4, 9.), this which follows : for it
does not relate (as Heinr. fancies) to what preceded.
‘The assurance was meant to silence their doubts, and
strengthen their resolution to encounter persecution.
Συναπεθάνομιεν, ““ 416 martyrs as he died.” Συβήσο-
μεν, “enjoy life and happiness with him.” In the
clause εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν there is a
fine climax. On the συμβ. see Rom. 5, 17. and the
note there. Heinr. compares Epict. Enchirid. c. 21.
οὐ μόνον συμπότης τῶν θεῶν Eon, ἀλλὰ Kal συναρχὼν.
On egy. see the note on 1 Tim. ὅ, 8.ι. The sense is
obvious.

13. εἰ ἁπιστοῦμεν----δύναται. The sense of these
words is somewhat obscure, partly from brevity, and
partly from the construction being adapted rather to
the antithesis, than to the sentiment. It hinges on
the words ἀπιστοῦμεν and ἀρνήσασθαι οὐ δύναται. The
antients interpret: ‘‘ Whether we believe or disbe-
lieve his resurrection and Messiahship, Christ will be
true, and the same will gain nothing by our belief,
nor lose any thing by our disbelief.” And so many
moderns. But this seems scarcely an apposite sense,
and does not arise naturally out of the words. As
the amor. has rior. corresponding to it, I agree with
the best modern Commentators, that it must denote
failing in our fidelity to Christ; which may be (as
Benson says) “by denying the Christian religion, or
rejecting it; by corrupting it, or mingling another
doctrine with it ; or by diving unworthy of it. IZfwe
should prove unfaithful, any of these ways, yet
Christ is faithful, and must disown us, as none of his
disciples.” The unfaithfulness here spoken of seems
to have been denying the Christian religion, in the
time of persecution, in order to avoid suffering. See

510 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11.

Doddr. The above interpretation is ably supported
by Rosenm. and Heinr., and is, undoubtedly, the
true one. “ By cannot deny himself (observes
Rosenm.) is meant, cannot act contrary to his nature,
which is altogether veracious, cannot deny that he is
Christ, and that what he has taught us is true.”

Consequently, he can appoint no other ἀντίδοσις,
retribution, whether for good or evil, than his decla-
rations authorize us to expect.

14. ταῦτα ὑπομιίμνησκε--- ἀκουόντων, “ of these things
remind the teachers committed to your superinten-
dence.” Benson thinks that by these are meant the
Judaizers. Be that as it may, it appears, by the
words following, that teachers are meant. And so
Est. and Rosenm. On diapaprupopevos ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυ-
elov see 1 Tim., 5, 21., and the note. And on λογο-
μαχεῖν see 1 Tim., 6,4. At ἐπὶ καταστροῷῃ the ἀλλὰ
is omitted, by asyndeton. ‘The sense of the rest is
obvious.

15. σποὐδασον----ἀληθείας.

After having shown what preachers of God's word ought not
to be, the Apostle shows what they ought to be. In the present
weighty admonition the nature of the metaphor used by the Apostle
has been a inatter of some doubt with the Commentators. Many
moderns recognize, in the ὀρθοτομοῦντα, an allusion to the Jewish
Priests cutting or dividing a sacrifice into its proper parts; or to
the scribes dividing the Law into sections (see Benson and Doddr.) ;
or to a carver distributing the meat to the guests; or, again, toa
steward dealing out the articles committed to his management. But
all these opinions seem destitute of any authority. ‘The most popu-
lar interpretation, for the last century, and one which carries the
greatest semblance of truth, is that of Greg. Nazienz., ably support-
ed by Elsner, Obss, 2,311., Wets., in loc., and many others. It is,
they say, a metaphor taken from those who proceed by a direct road,
leaving crooked and winding paths: for, in the Greek language, the
act of proceeding directly is called τέμνειν ὅδον, or κελεύθον εὐθει-
ay, and, in the Latin, viam secure. But there are two reasons which

_ prevent me from acceding to this interpretation. In the first place,
it drops the idea of ἐργατής. Butit is well known that ἔργα is, by
the writers of antiquity, peculiarly applied to the labours of
husbandry ; and it will readily occur to any one, that men engaged
in agriculture are, in our own tongue, called labourers; while the
term workmen is used, with greater variety and extent, of artizans.
My second reason is this: The explanation in question does not
sufficiently unfold that part of the compound word ὀρθοτομοῦντα;

Q TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 311

which imports the act of cutting, or dividing ; and which leads me
to think that the Apostle had in view the act of ploughing, when the
JSurrows are made straight.*

Most of the above statement is derived from an Episcopal Visita-
tion Sermon, by me, published many years ago by Messrs. Rivington,
and to the copious notes on which 1 refer for further details, only
observing, that the interpretation is supported by the authority of
Chrysostom and Theodoret.

10. τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστατο. With
this we may compare the ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους
κενοφωνίας of 1 Tim., 6, 20., the τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ
γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ of 1 Tim., 4, 7. (where see
the note), and the μωρὰς ϑητήσεις παραιτοῦ, infra, ver.
23. See also 3,9. The verb περιϊστάσθαι, signifies
to keep oneself aloof from, avoid, literally, by running
round (περὶ) a pillar, or any other object. See the
Classical citations of Kypke and Wets.

At τροκοψ. (aterm used both in a bad, and good
sense), the construction requires us to understand
the βεβηλοὶ κενοφωνίαι, which is taken by the Com-
mentators as put, by the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμιενον, for the
persons so acting. But it rather seems to mean the
use of such sophisms, &c., which, in Christians, and
especially Christian teachers, may very well be called
ἀσεβείαι ; since the holding and the promulgating of
such is inconsistent with our bounden duty to God,
and our Lord Jesus Christ, to honour him with our
body and with our spirit, which are God’s, to submit
our imaginations, as well as regulate our actions, by
the will of Him who worketh all in all.

The κενοῷων. Chrys, explains by καίνοτομ. In
which Iam not prepared to agree with him: and
yet I cannot but think that, in many respects, as re-
gards the Theology of a neighbouring country, the
two words are too often convertible terms: and I
would to God that those to whom this whole passage
may be so fairly applied, would seriously reflect on
the consequences of such unbounded speculation,

* To which purpose there is an interesting passage in Hesiod Op.
41—3. (on ploughing straight) Ὅς κ᾽ ἔργου μελετῶν ἰθεῖαν αὔλακ᾽
ἐλαύνει Μήκετι παπταίνων μεθ᾽ ὁμήλικας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ θυμὸν ἔχων,
See also Theocr, Id. 10., init.

312 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

and “turn from these vanities to serve the living
God.”

17. Kal 6 λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα. νομὴν ἔξει. The
γάγγρ., Rosenm. observes, is not the same as the
cancer, but something very like it. Castell., in his
Lex. Med., calls it an incipient mortification, by some
called St. Anthony’s fire. So Jaspis: “ Morbus est,
quo pars quedam corporis, vi inflammationis labo-
rans, ita corrupta est, ut, nisi mature et opportune
auxilium feratur, malum, latius in dies se diffundens,
vi veneni sui totum corpus carié arrodat ac perdat.”

The νομὴν ἔξει 15 ἃ peculiar phrase, with which the
Commentators compare γομὴν ποιεῖσθαι, and λαμβάνειν,
and that for νέμεσθαι and its compounds. So the
Vulg. serpit. But it should seem that ἕξει signifies
carries with it. Nop, like νέμεσθαι, is used of such
putrifying sores as communicate corruption to the

arts adjacent. One may compare a similar passage
of Acts 4, 17., where, speaking metaphorically of a
supposed false and pernicious opinion, it is said : ἵνα
μὴ ἐπὶ πλείον διανεμηθῆ, Rosenm. cites from Plut.
(respecting the feigned praises of adulators), yayyea-
ivas καὶ καρκινώματα. The moral application is
obvious.

18. περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν. So 1 Tim., 6,
Q1., περὶ τὴν πίστιν yor. (where see the note), and I
Tim., 4, 5., tas ἀληθείας ἀποστερεῖσθαι. On the
nature of the opinions so described no certainty can
be attained : and the opinions of Commentators are,
as vsual, various. Most think that these were
persons who held that the resurrection preached by
Jesus was purely a metaphorical and spiritual one,
and that that was past; that virtue was its own
reward in this life, and all that it could expect : for,
as Sadducees and Materialists, by denying the resur-
rection of the body, they denied all future existence.
(See the instructive note of Mackn.) On the other
hand, Benson, and most recent Commentators,
suppose their opinions to have been much the same
with those of Marcion and the Gnostics, as stated by

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 313

Epiphanius. Heeres. 42., ‘non carnis sed anime
resurrectionem esse credendam.” And Benson thinks.
that Marcion believed in the separate existence of
the soul. But such could not be the opinion of Hy-
meneus and Philetus ; for, according to the Apostle,
they held that there was only one resurrection, and
that past. They, therefore, evidently thought it the
same with baptismal regeneration. Marcion seems
to have maintained fwo resurrections, one present
and figurative ; the other future and real, namely, of
the soul; whereas, by the τὴν ἀναστ., it is implied
that Hymeneus and Philetus held but one.

At ἀνατρέπουσι, Priceeus observes, there is a meta-
phor taken from undermining any building, in con-
formity with which there is added ὁ στερεὸς θεμέλιος
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔστηκεν.

19. ὁ μέντοι orepeds θεμέλιος ἐστήκεν.

This is a passage of no ordinary difficulty, on which the opinions
of Commentators are very various. The most favourite one, for
the last half century is, that as σφραγὶς often denotes an inscription,
so it may here be used in allusion tothe custom of engraving on a
slab deposited at the foundation of a building, indicating the
purpose of its erection. Thus, by θεμελ., they understand the
religion which has God for its author, the chief purposes of which
are adverted to in the two sentences following. Thus Heinr.
renders: ‘‘Sed licet labantes nonnullorum animos seducant, ipsum
tamen religionis fundamentum revellere requibunt.” And he com-
pares Matt. 16, 18. He then adds: ‘ Et ἢ. 1. religionem sistit ut
edificium, seu templum, solidissimé fundatum, litterisque majusculis
sententid quadam breviori inscriptum.”’ Jaspis observes, that
σφραγὶς is, properly, the fundamental stone; and that such had in-
scriptions, appears from Apoc. 21,14. So Theophyl.: ἔχων ὧσα-
vel λίθος τε “γράμματά τινα καὶ γνωρίσματα ἐγκεκολαμμένα αὐτῷ δὲ
αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων, καὶ αὐτῷ ἐφαρμόξοντα, τὸ, "Ἔγνω κύριος, καὶ τὰ
ἑξῆς. Abp. Tillotson and Benson take θεμέλιος to Mean a covenant.
But that is devoid of authority, and little agreeable to the context.
Slade and Valpy adopt the interpretation of Wells: ‘‘ Nevertheless,
the foundation of God, i. e.the fundamental doctrine of the resur-
rection, whereon principally God has designed the truth of the Gos-
pel to be built, standeth sure and firm, having this seal, i. e. being
confirmed after the same way as God confirmed the authority of
Moses and Aaron against the gainsayings of Korah and his com-
panions, namely, when in reply to Korah, Moses answered, Numb.
16, 5., “* The Lord knoweth them that are his ;* and when he said
to the congregation of Israel, in reference to Korah, ἅς, Numb.
16, 26. ‘‘ Depart from the tents of these wicked men.” But this

314 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

seems very harsh as respects the @yyw—Xprorov. ‘Theodoret para-
phrases thus: παρασαλεῦσαι ov δύναται τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας κρηπῖδα"
ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ τοῦτον τέθεικε τὸν θεμέλιον" σφραγὶς δὲ τοῦ θεμελίου, τῆς
ἀναστάσεως ἣ ἐλπίς. Perhaps the interpretation first mentioned
may be united with this; q. d. “ The main fabric itself, and
especially that fundamental doctrine of the resurrection, standeth
firm.” And then what is added may be understood of the religion,
not the doctrine. And, certainly, in respect to religion, the two
sentences which are supposed to be inscribed upon it, contain matter
for serious meditation, and constant recollection to all its professors.
Ist., ἔγνω κ. τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, “ The Lord knoweth who are really
his.” See Joh. 13, 18., Neh. 1, 17., Num, 16,5. 2nd., ᾿Αποστήτω,
&c., ‘* Let every professor of the Christian religion depart from ini-
quity.”” See Whitby and Benson. This should, therefore, seem
directed against those false teachers who, though holding doctrines
subversive of the religion of God, yet professed to be his faithful
worshippers ; and though professing a religion which was intro-
duced to purify men from iniquity, yet were too little careful to ob-
serve it in their actions.

20. ἐν μεγάλῃ---εἰς ἀτιμίαν. This passage partakes
of the difficulty which envelops the preceding, chiefly
because the application of the similitude is wanting;
as Rom. 5, 12., and elsewhere. Hence Commenta-
tors differ in opinion. ‘The antients took the great
house to be the world, and the words meant to reply
to the enquiry. ‘* Why does God permit evil men
to be in the world.” But this is little agreeable to
the context. The best modern Commentators (and
even some antients) think that it must mean the
Church. Yet they are not agreed whether by the
vessels are meant Christians in general, or Ministers.
The former opinion is supported by most Commenta-
tors. (See Benson, Rosenm., and Heinr.) The
latter, by Mackn., Jaspis, and others; and, indeed,
it seems most agreeable to the context: but perhaps
it may be included in the former.

Q1. ἐὰν οὖν τις exxabeioy ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, &c., “ If
aman keep himself pure from the contamination of
bad men, or false teachers, he will be a vessel pure
and fit for the master’s use, prepared for every good
work,” i. e. he will be a faithful Christian and a good
teacher. The εἰς πάν, &c. is exegetical of εὔχρηστον
τῷ δεσπότῃ. It is unnecessary to add more. ‘The
most apposite Classical passage here adduced is

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 815

Aristot. Rhet. 2. p. 530. (cited by Heinr.) Τροπὴν
ἔχει ἀπὸ σκευῶν καὶ ἀγγείων, μετενεχθὲν ἐπὶ τὰ σεμινο-
τέρα, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν ἄνδρων.

22. τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε. The νεωτ.
exif. are commonly explained of fornication, or at
least sensuality. And Wets. adduces many ex-
amples of cupiditates adolescentie : and he cites
Philo 2, 84. μειρακιώδεις ἐπιθυμίας. Yet considering
the extreme temperance, nay abstinence, practised
by Timothy, and the nature of the antithetical terms,
this would be quite foreign to the purpose. Others,
as Salmas. and Schliting., interpret it of a rage for
novelty, such as is often found in young men. But
this is destitute of authority, and is little agreeable
to the context. Others, as Loesn. and Schleus., in-
terpret it vehement, heady. But not to say that the
examples they adduce rather relate to veavixos, this is
too limited a sense. Upon the whole, I prefer, with
Wolf, Doddr., Rosenm., and Heinr., taking μειρακ.
in the common and most general signification, youth-
Jul,thereby understanding all those hot and heady pas-
sions which hurry young men into follies and vices.
Considering, too, the somewhat mature age (thirty-
eight) to which Timothy had now arrived, cum (to
use the words of Cicero) adoloscentice cupiditates de-
fervissent, and the nature of the opposite terms, the
expression must (I think) be taken ofa rash, violent,
heady, contentious spirit, pride, ambition, &c. And
let it be remarked, that this Epistle, as well as the
last, was intended for other ministers as well as
Timothy.

Δικαιοσύνην and πίστιν are best explained virtue
and fidelity. The ἀγάπην denotes that loving dispo-
sition which was to be cultivated towards both
Christians and Heathens. For it may also refer to
the latter. To these he adds εἰρήνη---καρδίας, which,
from ver. 23 & 25., seem mentioned in order to check
any spirit of harshness towards some who, though
differing in opinion with him and most Christians
upon certain questions of no fundamental import-

316 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II.

ance, yet were sincerely pious Christians. Such is
admitted to be the sense of the τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων
τὸν Κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, with which I would
compare Soph. Cid. Col. 4, 87. καλοῦμεν Eupevidas
ἐξ εὐμιενών στέρνων δέχεσθαι τὸν ἱκέτην, where the
Schol. explains : : μὴ ἐξ ἐπιπολῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδιαθέτως. See
also 1 Sam. 1, 5.

23, τὰς de pwpas—payas. Compare 1 Tim. 1, 4.
& 0, 4. Μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους, contributing nothing
to true religion or real happiness. So Theophyl. : :
αἱ κατὰ δαλυταβύεν: καὶ οὐ κατὰ τινα χρείαν γινομιέναι
διαλέξεις. Compare Prov. 5, 23. Mayas, strifes.
See Tit. 3, 9.

24. δοῦλον δὲ ΙΚυρίου---ἀνεξίκακον. The antient and
best modern Commentators take the doa. Κυρίου to
mean a Christian minister; an appellation often
given by the Apostles to ‘themselves and other
teachers, and (as I have shown) used even among
the Heathens. ‘So Pausan. 10, 32, 8. med.

Ou δεῖ μάχεσθαι, “ must not be disputatious
and quarrelsome,” either in his public teaching, or
private discourse. Compare Tit. 3, 2. and Matt.
12, 19. Διδακτικὸν. See the note on 1 Tim. 8, 2.
It should seem to have both the active and passive
sense, apt to teach, docibilis, and ready to be taught,
as opposed to an overbearing , disputatious spirit :
and this is confirmed by the next verse. *AveSixakoy, -
ἘΣ patient of injuries. % So Hierocl., cited by Wets. :
πρὸς τὴν ἀρίστην φίλων τήρησιν, καὶ τὴν εὔλογον ἀπό-
θεσιν, καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐκ μεταμελείας αὐτῶν μετανάκλησιν
πλεῖστα συμβάλλεται τὸ ἡμέτερον ἀνεξίκακον, καὶ περὶ

μηδενὺς πρὸς τοὺς φίλους μικρολογούμενον, μηδὲ ἐξετασ-
τικὸν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον οἷοντε ὑπομονητικὸν.
See Sap. 2,18. In this context it must denote to-
lerant of the petulant expressions which may be ex-
pected from opposite disputants ; agreeably to our
Lord’s direction, Matt. 20, 26. So Aristides 3, 360.
says of Themistocles οὕτω Φαῦλος ἦν τοὺς τρόπους
(affable and easy) καὶ αὐτόχρημα θεώμενος.

25. ἐν πρᾳότητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους,

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. II. 517

“in meekness setting right and instructing the op-
ponents.” Theodoret explains: φέρων αὐτών μακρο-
θύμως τὰς ἀντιθέσεις. But ἀντιδιατιθ. has no particular
reference to oppositions of argument. It signifies, in
a general way, to be contrary minded. ‘Thus some
MSS. read (6 glossa) ἀντικειμένους ; as 1 Tim. 5, 4.
Compare 1 Tim. 6, 11. It is tr uly remarked by
Theophyl. : Mera bohodcapros γὰρ καὶ μάχης οὐκ ay
Th τῶν χρησίμων δυνηθείη συνιδεῖν ἡ ψυχὴ, διότι τὸν “μελ-
λοντά τι τών χρησίμων μαθεῖν, χρὴ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπαν-
τῶν ἡδέως ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν διδάσκοντα. Πώς δ᾽ ἂν ἡδέως
ἔχοι πρὸς τὸν θρασυνόμινον καὶ ὑβρίξοντα ;

At μήποτε δώ, &c. there is an ellipsis, like μήπως,
Rom. 11, 21. “ (trying) whether God may give,”
ὅτε. Els ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας, “ so that they may
acknowledge the truth they now reject.” The
Apostle, howev er, hints at the danger of their error
by making it need repentance, and that to be effected
principally by God. So Acts 11,18. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὃ

εὸς τὴν μετανοίαν ἔδωκεν εἰς ϑωὴν.

™“™

26. καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν---θέλημα.

This is one of those passages in which it is easy to see the general
sense, but difficult to determine it in specie. Hence the variety of
opinions. As to the clause ἀνανήψωσιν---παγίδος, that involves no
serious difficulty. It is only necessary to consider it as a blending
together of two metaphors, and as representing two clauses (and so
the Syr.) ; Ist, awaken from the deep sleep, and become sober
from the inebriation of diabolical error; Qdly, to rise, disengage
oneself from a snare. Νήφειν and ἀνανήφειν signify, lst, to awake
from a deep sleep; 2dly, to become sober from inebriation; 3dly,
to come to a right mind.* But to proceed to the second clause,
ἐξωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ eis τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα, here the diversity of
opinions appears. The question (I conceive) is, to whom is the pro-
noun, and consequently the verb ἐξ. to be referred? To the more
remote antecedent 6 Θεὸς, of whom the é@wy. must be understood,

* Of these senses examples are adduced by the Commentators, to
which I add others of the third signification from Liban. Orat. 772
ἀνανήψας καὶ τὸν νοῦν eis ἑαυτὸν συλλεξάμενος, where there is a si-
milar confusion of two phrases. Oraculum Delph. ap. Suid. Acoye-
vis νήψας αἰσχρᾶς καταπαύσεται ὀργῆς. Orac. Syb. p. 33. Galei.
K’ ov θελετ᾽ ἔκνηψαι καὶ σώφρονα πρὸς νοῦν ἐλθεῖν. See also Jo-
seph. 1036, 4. and Cebes p. 16. The Commentators adduce no
example of a confusion of the two metaphors; which, however, is
not unfrequent in St. Paul. See Heb. 3, 13.

318 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. 11. III.

say most antients and many moderns, as H. Steph., Kypke, Mi-
chaelis, and Menoch. ‘This interpretation seems to have arisen
from their stumbling at the doctrine supposed to be involved in the
words. So Camerar.: “ Dictu sané est horribile.” But I appre-
hend that as the é&. must have reference to the same noun as παγέ-
Sos ; and as that is also connected with τοῦ Διαβόλου, so must this.
And in this the antients and most eminent moderns, as E. V.,
Grot., Rosenm., Heinr., Wets., and Jaspis agree. As to the doc-
trine, there is nothing in it more horrible than what is elsewhere
found in the New Testament, of the influence of the Devil in en-
tangling men in error, keeping them so, and lulling them in the
deep sleep of ignorance and security, &c. As to the αὐτοῦ and
ἐκείνου, as used of the same, this is a common variation, on which

see Scultet ap. Crit. Sacr.*
CHAP. ill.

Verse 1. With this and the following verse com-
parel Tim. c. 4. “Ev ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. So 1 Tim.
4,1. ἐν ὑστεροῖς καιροῖς, where see the note, to which
I add a passage from Aischyl. Ag. 1656. Blomf. ἐν
ὑστέραισιν ἡμέραις, where the learned Editor com-
pares Soph. Cid. Col. 641. ἐν ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ. He
might have added that the phrase often occurs, and
in this sense, (namely, at some future time,) in Thu-
cyd. ᾿Ενστήσονται, will be at hand, arrive. So2 Thess.
2,2. ws ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα, τοῦ Kugiov. Sometimes
ἀνιστ. is used nearly in the same sense. Χαλεποὶ is
explained by Theophyl. πάνυ πονηροί. And he ob-

* T must not omit to mention a method of interpretation, origi-
nally proposed by Beza, Hamm, and Wells, and since adopted by
Slade and Valpy, by which the αὐτοῦ is referred to διαβόλου, and
the ἐκείνου to ὁ Θεὸς. ‘The passage is thus construed and inter-
preted: καὶ ἐθωγρημένοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλον
παγίδος εἰς τὸ ἔκεινον θέλημα, ““ that they may recover themselves
to his will out of the snare of the Devil, who have been taken cap-
tive by him.” But the scholarship of these Commentators might
have shown them that so violent a construction is utterly inadmis-
sible ; and their good sense ought to have suggested to them how
little necessary it was to resort to any such device.

Wets. ingeniously paraphrases the whole thus: ‘‘ Capti a servo
sive ministro Evangelia, Luc. 5, 10. ut serventur et faciant volunta-
tem Dei. Heb. 13, 21. Ex laqueis diaboli, in quibus perituri erant,
extricantur a servo Domini, et transferuntur in alium statum, ut
voluntatem Dei deinceps faciant.”

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 319

serves that this is a popular idiom. The Commen-
tators compare the Latin gravissima et formidolosa
tempura. See Heinr.

Q—3, ἔσονται yap οἱ ἄνθοωποι, &c.

Here is a συναθροισμὸς similar to that of Auct. ad Herenn. L, 4.
Cupidus, intemperans, impius in parentes, infestus in cognatos, in
superiores contumax, in pares fastidiosus, in inferiores crudelis.
The Apostle gives the reason why he had called those times χαλεποί.
He predicts that Christian virtue will degenerate, and piety be rare ;
for of Christians only he now speaks; and ecclesiastical history
shows how speedily the prediction was accomplished. (Grot. and
Rosenm.) Vitringa, in a very learned Dissert. Obs. Sacr. L. 4.,
proves that there was a great alteration in the face of the Christian
Church between the time of Nero and Trajan, within which period
he apprehends great numbers of professors to have departed from
the strictness of Christian morals, as well as the purity of the faith.

Φίλαυτοι. This is properly a vox media, but, like our selfish, was
generally used in malam partem, to signify rapacious, avaricious,
and unfeeling. See Aristot. de Rep. 2, 5.and Nicomach. 9, 8. cited
by Wets. To which I add Eurip. Med. 85. ὡς πᾶς τις αὐτὸν τῶν
πέλας μᾶλλον φιλεῖ. Joseph. 116, 43. διὰ τὸ φύσει πάντας εἶναι pe
λαυτοὺς, and 201, 31. ἐδήλου (scil. ὁ Θεὸς) τὴν ἀνθρωπίνων φύσιν
αὐτοφίλαυτον οὔσαν.

The φιλάργυροι and ἀλαξόνες require no explanation. (See
Schleus.) But as selfishness and avarice are closely united, so, I
think, the Apostle meant to join ἀλάξονες with them, in order to
form a group; for it seems to denote ostentation of wealth and
grandeur; and certain it is that the same grovelling spirit that excites
men to scrape together riches, heedless of the ruin of others, impels
them to gratify their vanity by insulting those who have not equal
wealth, So that ostentation, whatever shape it may assume, has
ever its root in selfishness and avarice. The next word, ὑπερηφάγνοι,
is nearly alied to ἀλαξ., and seems to furm part of the same group.

Βλάσφημοι, in Deum nempe,” says Rosenm. And so Theoph.,
who thinks there is a climax, and also Grot. But it would (1
think) be nearer the truth to say in homines, See Scultet. and 1
Tim. 6, 4.

The next terms, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι, ἀνόσιοι, ἄστοργοι,
and ἄσπονδοι, seem to form another group. For, as Theophyl. ob-
serves, he that is disobedient to parents, will be ungrateful to others.
And he that is such, is ἀνόσιος, because τὴν ὅσιαν καὶ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον
ἀθετεῖ. He will also be ἄστοργος, for whom willhe feel affection for
if he rejects his benefactor. He will also be ἄσπονδος, for whom
will he keep covenant with, if not his parent and benefactor ?
But the ἄστοργος seems rather to represent that want of natural
affection reciprocally between parents and children, and between
near relations, which we find by the Classical writers was so preva-
lent in that most corrupt age. Josephus often adverts to it; and
also Appian and the other Historians: not to mention the Satirists,

320 1 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

as Juveval, and Homer, and ‘'hucyd. 3, 81, gives a specimen of the
surpassing brutality in the Peloponnesian war, καὶ yap πάτηρ παῖδα
απέκτεινε. I would compare Apoll. Tyzn. Ep. 56. where he says of
the Sardinians, ὑμῖν δὲ ἄσπονδα καὶ ἀκήρυκτα καὶ ἀμείλικτα ἔτι τε
ἀνίερα (1 would read dviapa) καὶ ἄθεα, τὰ πρὸς γονεῖς πρὸς τέκνα,
τὰ πρὸς φίλους συγγενεῖς φυλέτας. When they are said to be devoid
of this, it is not meant that they never had it, but that they had
divested themselves of it, or suppressed it, or act in opposition to it.

Διάβολοι, calumniators, For by calumniating the good, they try
to bring all down to their own level, as the best medicine for self-
reproach.

᾿Ακρατεῖς and ἀνήμεροι seem associated. So Doddr.: “ intem-
perate in their pleasures, fierce in their resentments.” These terms,
however, seem meant to denote that state of brutishness in both
these respects, which is seen in the fierce tenants of the forest. ’Adgc-
λάγαθοι is well rendered by Doddr.: “ destitute of all love of good-
ness :”” though this lingers latest in the heart of all the good feelings
implanted there by the Creator. Tpoddrar. Here there may be a
climax ; since treachery has ever been considered as one of the most
odious of vices. As this term: comes after ἀφιλάγαθοι, it may mean
“« betraying the good,” namely, their fellow Christians, as did Judas.
So Theophyl. and Gicumen. supply φιλίας καὶ ἐταιρίας.

A. προπετεῖς, τετυφωμένοι, φιλήδονο! μαλλον ἢ Piro-
θεοι. ‘There is ἃ difficulty respecting these words
which the Commentators (prudently enough) for-
bear to touch on. It is this. In the preceding there
is a perceptible climax. But here are epithets
far weaker than the preceding. Now this, I think,
may be accounted for by supposing the Apostle in-
tended these words as a separate clause, and meant
by this epilogus to characterize what would be the
leading traits in professed Christians (for that
seems to be what is meant by φιλόθεοι), namely, a
restless, heady, headlong, rash, reckless, vain, con-
ceited spirit, and an ungovernable thirst for sensual
gratifications. Considering the dissoluteness of the
manners of that age, the last trait can require no
illustration : and as to the second, it is nearly allied
to the ἀλαϑόνες and ὑπερήφανοι. ‘The first is not so
easily accounted for. But those who have atten-
tively studied the historical records of those miser-
able times will admit that this was one of the most
distinguishing traits of the people. Many passages
proving and illustrating this I remember to have read
in Josephus, Appian, Dio Cass. and others. Such

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IIT. 821

itis that Thucyd., in an inimitably fine description
of the manners of the Greeks in the Peloponnesian
war, calls the τὸ ἐμπλήκτως ὀξὺ, which the Scholiast
explains by μανιωδώς. This and the τόλμα ἀλόγιστος,
the Historian says, were then alone accounted
bravery. Now as human nature (corrupt alas!) is
the same in every age, it is no wonder that there
should be many striking points of resemblance.
Thus Theodoret says, that the description exactly
corresponded to the manners of his own age ; for,
says he, τούτων κακῶν πλήρης ὁ ἡμέτερος βίος, καὶ τὸ τῆς
εὐσεβείας περικείμενοι πρόσχημα, τὸ τῆς πονηρίας διὰ τῶν
ἔργων κατασκευάξομεν. εἴδωλον' ἐρασιχρήματοι γὰρ ἀντὶ
φιλοθέων γεγόναμεν, καὶ τών παθών ἀσπαϑόμιεβα τὴν δου-
λείαν. ‘The term in question is well explained by
Jaspis thus: “ [Iporereis sunt homines, qui stimulis
affectuum exagitati cseco impetu precipites ad om-
nia feruntur, que ipsorum pravis blandiantur cupi-
ditatibus et studiis, leges divinas pariter atque hu-
manas susque deque habent et omnia hac de re sibi
licita putant. Ab hujus vitii trunco multi rami pro-
pullulant.”

With the elegant paronomasia at Φιληδ. and Φιλό-
Geos. Wets. compares Demoph. @iayjdovoy καὶ φιλόθεον
τὸν αὐτὸν advvarey ἐστι, and Philo 145, 11. φιλήδονον
καὶ φιλοπάθη μάλλον ἣν Φιλόθεον.

ὅ. ἔχοντες μόρῷωσιν εὐσεβείας, τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς
ἠρνημένοι" Μόρφωσις denotes the outward appear-
ance, dress, countenance, manners, voice, &c.; and
so itis heretaken by the Commentators. But such the
persons above described would hardly have. It ra-
ther stands here for μορφὴ, which term often denotes
a mere form, as opposed to reality, and denotes the
external forms of Christianity (such as profession of
its doctrines, and occasional attendance on divine
worship), as opposed to internal and genuine piety.
So Philo. 340, 14. (referred to by Loesn.) καὶ νῦν εἶσι
τινες τῶν ὩΣ ΠΟΥΟΥΒΑΝ τὴν εὐσεβείαν. Rosenm.
compares Tit. 1, 16. Θεὰν ὁμογοῦσιν εἰδέναι, τοῖς δὲ
ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται. "And he observes, that the δύναμιν

VOL. VIII. Υ

322 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

τῆς εὐσεβείας stands for real piety, as being the νεῦρα
εὐσεβείας" ᾿Ηρνημένοι, caring not for, neglecting.

The Apostle then adds, καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου,
where Heinr. renders the καὶ ergo. But it may have
the usual sense, as referring to the heretical teachers
and others, whom the Apostle had admonished
Timothy to avoid. The τούτους is for τοιούτους : a use
often to be found in Thucyd. and the best Classical
writers.

6. ἐκ τούτων---ὡμαρτίαις. The Apostle now enters
into a more particular discussion of the above ; for
ver. 6 and 7 seem parenthetical. Oi ἐνδύνοντες τ΄. ο.
This is supposed to be a metaphor taken from ser-
pents; as Hom. Il. y. ἔδυ. where the Schol. explains
ὑπεισῆλθε. So that the term may be best rendered
wind their way into, wriggle themselves into. Though
the E. V. creep, and the Version of Doddr. insinuate
are proper enough. No so that of Mackn., go, by
which the spirit of the metaphor evaporates. Thus
Theophyl. says it marks the τὸ ἀνασχυντὸν, τὸ ἀνελεύ-

E60, καὶ κολακικὸν, καὶ ἀπάτης γέμον. For an example
of évd. for εἰσδ. Rosenm. refers to a passage of Aris-
tophanes. I would add Athen. 254 D. κόλακές εἰσι----
εἰς οὖν ἄκακον ἀνθρώπου τρόπον Hiodds ἔκαστος, ἐσθίει κα-
βίμενος.

6. αἰχμαλωτεύοντες:. Rosenm. refers to Rom. 16,
18. But (as Theophyl. observes) this denotes more
than ἐξαπατώντες ; the notion of aiypaarwr.(which is
similar to our vulgar phrase, lead by the nose), sup-
posing subjection for some end on the part of the
subjector. The diminutive γυναικάρια implies (as
often) contempt. Σεσωρ. Heinr. compares Is. 1, 4. ;
and Rosenm., Sallust: “ flagitiis coopertis.” “Ayeo-
θαι and other words of cognate sense are often used
of the being enslaved to vice.

As to the persons here meant, I assent to Doddr. that they were
not Jews, but false Christian teachers. Whether the Romish Monks
of the dark ages be meant (as some say), is uncertain, There are
strong points of resemblance. And yet, long before the middle ages,

we find this adverted to. So Irenzeus ap Wets.: μάλιστα περὶ yuvai-
kas ἀσχολεῖται, καὶ τοῦτον τὰς εὐπαρύφους- καὶ περιπορφύρους Kat πλου-

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 323

σιωτάτους. The same things, too, are proved of the Pharisees. Thus
Joseph. 753, 35. καὶ yap ἦν μόριον τι Ἰουδαιῶν (scil. Phariseei) ἐπ’
ἀκρίβωσι μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου νόμου" οἷς, χαίρειν τὸ Θεῖον
πρόστοι οὐ μένων, ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις. See also 1003, 36. In-
deed this is true of every age. So Less in a Dissert. on this passage,
cited by Heinr.: ‘Veteratores istius modi plerumque varium et
mutabile semper fceminam adoriri: hujus conscientie pro lubitu
imperare: ejusque ope familias regere integrasque respublicas,
historia docet zqu® ac nostri temporis experientia.” And Jerome
(cited by Menoch, and Tiren.) says that all heresies have begun to
be propagated by means of women. Certainly the words have been
verified of religionists whose opinions differed in toto from those of |
the Romanists.

6. ἀγόμιενα ἐπιθυμίαις. The ἐπιθυμίαι are usually in-
terpreted vices and sins of every kind, especially
carnal lusts, in which Less and Heinr. think these
false teachers indulged them, in order to make them
subservient to their own purposes of every kind.
But perhaps this may be more than the Apostle
meant; since it is little agreeable to what follows.
It rather seems to mean strong passions and feel-
ings. Now it is well known how the exquisite sen-
sibility of the fairer (and I may add better) sex has
been, in every age, artfully worked upon by such
hypocrites. | \

7. πάντοτε pavbavovra—duvapeva. If the sense
assigned to the foregoing be true, this admit of easy
explanation. For by such weak persons, and from
such ill informed and crafty teachers ruth could
never be attained ; much less that practical use of it
which is of most importance. Heinr. (probably
enough) thinks this applies chiefly to rich elderly
women, who, after having past a life of sin, wished
to attain something that should allay the ae of
conscience, and reconcile them to themselves. |

8. ὃν τρόπον---Μωῦύσεῖ. These were Egyptian ma-
gicians who, as we learn from the Rabbinical writ-
ings (from whence St. Paul derived the intelligence)
and some Gentile philosophers, Numinius, Arche-
laus, and Pliny, were priests at Memphis, and were
among those who opposed their magic tricks to the

is

324, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

miracles of Moses. ἴΑνθοωποι---πίστιν. Compare
1 Tim. 6, 5.

9. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ προκόψουσιν--- ἐγένετο. So supra, 2, 16.
ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας. ‘The phrases are
the same, though not the persons. “Emil πλεῖον,
“very far.’ So Theodoret: μέχρι πόλλον. Ανοια,
“*7gnorance and imposture.” See 1 Tim. 1, 13.

10. od δὲ---ὐπομονῆ. ‘The connection is obscure,
and has been variously traced. ‘The most natural
mode may be (with Heinr.) to take the δὲ as an
adversative ; q.d. ““ Thou (on the contrary),” &c.
The Apostle, however, makes this eulogium intro-
ductory to an admonition to constancy and greater
zeal in defence of religion; q. d. “ Thou who hast
fully known—do thou continue,” &c. (ver. 14.) On
παρακ. see the note on 1 Tim. 4,6. The pov (as
Heinr. observes, is emphatic. ᾿Αγωγὴ, manner of
life, ἀνασροφὴ ; a signification common in the Classi-
cal writers. IIgobéce: scope and purpose. So the Vulg.
propositum; and Theophyl., παραστήματι τῆς ψυχῆς.
Wets. compares Plin. Pan. Traj. 91. ita congruens
tenor vitee, ita una eademque ratio propositi postu-
labat. Πίστει, sincerity and fidelity. ᾿Αγάπη, love
to Christians, nay, even Pagans. ‘The terms pak-
ροθυμίᾳ and ὑπομονῇ, are by Heinr. united; and ἀγάπῃ
being placed between, is interpreted of love to per-
secutors. But this is harsh. It should rather seem
that μακροῦ. refers to what he is to bear with from
his brethren (and so, I find, Theophyl.) ; ὑπομονὴ, to
the persecution to be endured from Jews and Pa-
gans: on which latter particular he enlarges in the
next verse.

11. τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασιν. These words are
put in apposition, and require something to be sup-
plied; q. d. ‘* (which I was called upon to endure in)
the persecutions,” ἄς. See Acts 13,14, 45, & 50.
19, 1—6. Kal, and yet.

12. καὶ πάντες δὲ---διωχθήσονται. “ (Nay) and all,”
&e. Ei θέλοντες εὐσεβώς ϑην" is for οἱ εὐσεβοῦντες. And
edo. ϑὴν ev X. 1. signifies, ‘‘ live with piety suitable

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 325

to the Christian faith, holily, righteously, and godly.”
I would compare Nicephorus, 46 a. τοὺς κατὰ Θεὸν ϑῆν
αἱρουμένους. Mostrecent Commentators, as Less, Heinr.
&c., think the διωχθήσ. is solely to be interpreted
of those times of bitter persecution when the “ little
flock” was surrounded with countless multitudes of
Jews and Gentiles. But this is an unwarrantable
refinement ; since it is, more or less, true of every
age, especially when the good and evil principles
are brought into collision with each other; the cor-
ruption of our nature always supplying matter. Be-
sides, as Theophyl]. observes, by the διωγμ. may be
included θλίψεις and édvvais, which the righteous are
called upon to bear, πειρατήριον γὰρ ἐστιν ὃ βίος τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου, κατὰ τὸν Ἰὼβ, καὶ ὃ τὴν στένην ὁδεύων, ἐξ
ἀνάγκης θλίβεται.

18. πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι---πλανώμινοι. Toys, like
πλάνος and ἀπατεὼν, signifies ἃ juggler, or, in ἃ ge-
neral way, an impostor or deceiver: a fit appellation
for the false teachers just mentioned. Προκόψουσιν
ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, “they will go from bad to worse;”
since nemo repenteé fit turpissimus. Πλανώντες κ. π.
“deceiving their devotees, and being themselves
deceived by other teachers whom they follow.” So
most Commentators (as Rosenm.) explain. But
there is something unsatisfactory in the latter part
of this exposition. The scope of the Apostle (which
has been little attended to) is this. In the former
verse he speaks for the warning and, in some mea-
sure, the comfort of all true Christians of all ages.
In the present verse he further speaks for their com-
fort, by checking that spirit of murmuring, which
even the righteous (as David) are too apt to fall into,
on comparing their own afflictions with the seeming
happiness of the wicked. To which the answer is,
that this world is a scene of trial; and, moreover,
that the wicked do in reality deceive themselves,
when they deceive others, and will suffer what they
inflict. ‘This view of the sense is supported by the

326 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

authority of Chrys., Theophyl., and Gucumen., and
has been adopted by Heinr.

There is a neat paronomasia in πλανώντες καὶ πλα-
νώμενοι, of which Wets. adduces several examples
in decipere and decipi. Rosenm. compares Julian :
ἡπατημιένος ἀπατᾷ. To which I add Liban. Ep. 1182.
ἡπατήμενος αὐτὸς ἐξάπατα, and Porph. in Vita Plohn.
c. 15. πόλλους ἐξηπάταν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἡπατήμιένοι. But
this paronomasia was aimed at in other verbs as well
as ἅπατ.

14. ob ὃὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες Kal ἐπιστώθης. The
Apostle follows up his censure of the false teachers
by a noble epilogus, ver. 14.—fin. Compare 1 Tim.
4, 16. Δὲ, on the contrary. Grot. observes, that
kal ἐπιστώθης is for érior., by syllepsis. It is well
rendered by Heinr.: “ que certissimé et in firmam
tuam persuasionem edoctus es.” ᾿ἔπιστ. is a stronger
term than ἔμαθες. So Hesych.: ἐπληρωφορήθη. And
Theophyl. explains it: μετὰ πληροφορίας ἔμαθες. And
he observes that there were two reasons given why
he should hold them firmly. 1. As having learned
them from Paul, nay (through his medium), from
Christ himself. 2. That they were not to him a
thing of yesterday, but learned by him from a child,
and rooted in him. Rosenm. thinks the Apostle
means to allude to the communicating the pure milk
of the word, without admixtures of Gentile philo-
sophy, or Jewish superstition: and Heinr., to his
disinterestedness. But it should rather seem that he
refers to himself as a divine legate, and endued with
all the qualifications fitted for imparting religious
knowledge.

15. καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας.
There is here (I think) no anacoluthon, as some sup-
pose. ‘The εἴδως must be repeated, but with a slight
accommodation of sense, namely, mindful. Ἱερὰ
γράμματα, ‘the Scriptures of the Old Testament.”
By this and similar names they are called by Joseph.,
Philo, and others. See the note on Joh. 7, 15. and
Wets. in loc. ᾿Απὸ βρέφους, “ from a boy.” So ἐκ

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. 327

παιδὸς and other phrases. ‘That this instruction
commenced at a very early period, nay, even at the
age of five, we learn from the authority of Joseph.,
Philo, and the Rabbins. Σοφίσαι C3, instruct. So
Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 330. (cited by Wets.)
, \ / / « \ A /

σοφιστάς τοὺς διδασκάλους νόει ὡς τοὺς ἄλλους σοφί-
Sovras. Kis σωτηρίαν, “i. 6. (says Theophyl.) not in
deceits, sophisms, and logomachias, which would be
> > / ” Ν ΄ \ 9

εἰς ἀπώλειαν. The words διὰ πίστεως τὴς ἐν Χ. I.
must be closely connected with σωτηρίαν. So Theo-
phyl. : ποίαν: ; οὐ τὴν OF ἔργων, οὐ τὴν διὰ λόγων, ἀλλὰ
τὴν Sa πίστεως I. Χ. ᾿Οδηγοῦσι γὰρ αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ τὸν
ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι Χριστώ, σωτηρίαν περιποιοῦντι.
Wets. paraphrases thus: “ Libros V. 'T. nosti, qui
te possunt ducere ad salutem, si jungas doctrinam
Christi, ad quam prophetiz in illis content te du-
cunt.” That is, “they instruct in the business of
salvation to be effected by faith in Christ,” i.e. by
the Christian religion. For, as Rosenm. observes,
the prophecies and the whole economy of the Old
Testament tend to Christ, whom they prove to have
been Jesus; the end of the law is Christ, the scope
and sum of Scripture : wherefore our Lord and the
Apostles often show the close connection of the new
religion with the Old Testament. See Joh. 5, 39.
Acts 17,2 & 3.18, 28. 28, 33. Their other uses
are touched on in the next verse.

16. πᾶσα γραφὴ----δικαιοσύνῃ.

On the construction, and, in some degree, the sense of these words,
there has been no little difference of opinion. That an ἐστι must
be supplied, is obvious; but on the place where it is to be intro-
duced interpreters are not agreed. The antients almost universally,
and the moderns up to the time οὗ Camerar. and Grot., and most
since, insert it between γραφὴ and θεόπνευστός. This, however,
did not satisfy even some antients, who (as I find from Theophyl.)
objected, “ What, is all Scripture, that of the Greek Classics too,
divinely inspired ? > No.” ‘To make the sense complete, they there-
fore put a comma after θεόπν. Thus the sense will be: * All
inspired Scripture is also profitable.” And this is adopted by Theo-
doret, who remarks: To διορισμῷ χρησάμενος ἀπέκρινε τὰ τῆς
ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας συγγράμματα. Theophyl., however, acutely re-
moves the objection thus: Ἔδει δὲ αὐτοὺς συνειδεῖν, ὃ ὅτι εἰπὼν ἀνω-
τέρω; τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, λέγει νῦν, ὅτι πᾶσα γράφη᾽ ποία;

328 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III.

περὶ ἧς διελέγετο, περὶ ἧς εἶπεν, ὅτι ἱερά" πᾶσα οὖν ἡ τοιαύτη, θεόπ-
νευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, πρὸς πάντα, &c. Yet all the most eminent
critics, from Camer. down to Heinr. and Jaspis, adopt the con-
struction of Theodoret, which is also supported by the authority of
the Syr. and Vulg. (and also by the Pseudo Phocylid.): τῆς δὲ
θεοπνεύστου σοφίας λόγος ἐστιν ἄριστος. But though the sense
may not be materially different, yet I see not how the καὶ will per-
mit this: for to take it with Camerar., as put αἰτητικῶς, is very
harsh, Asa proof of which the καὶ is omitted by Clem. Alex.,
_ Theod. Mops., and other Fathers (see Griesb.), who adopt the in-
terpretation in question. And ‘to make surety more sure,” they
bring in οὖσα. But this putting in and putting out, without the
authority of a single MS. (for as to Versions, they are no evidence)
is most unwarrantable. It has beenshown by Wolf, Gusset, and
others ap. Wolf, that the cai admits of no tolerable exposition, ex-
cept upon the common interpretation, which was satisfactorily
established by Athanasius and Chrysostom ; and in this, as the con-
struction requires it, the context admits it, and the sense it yields is
more determinate (for the other is but a left-handed mode), I must
finally acquiesce,

On the exact sense in which the inspiration is to be understood
this is no fit place to treat. Suffice it to say, that without contend-
ing for the plenary inspiration of every portion of the Old Testament
(i.e. to the suggestion of the thoughts and words), yet we must
suppose that such a degree of divine aid was afiorded, as was neces-
sary to accomplish the purposes intended, and secure the writer
from any error of consequence: otherwise it could not be depended
on for the purposes here suggested.

The διδασκαλίαν and ἔλεγχον are considered by Heinr. as forming
an hendiadis. But they are better kept separately; the former
signifying, κ΄ teaching us the truth, true religion ;” the latter, ‘‘con-
viction of the opposite error.” So Theophyl.: διδάσκουσα εἴτι δεῖ
μαθεῖν, καὶ εἰ ἐλέγξαι δεῖ τὰ ψεύδη. The πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν signifies,
“¢for reformation of irregularities in practice.’ So Polyb. p. 50.
(cited by Wets.) πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν τοῦ ἀνθρώπων βίου. With re-
spect to the πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, it is considered by
Theophyl. and Heinr. as synonymous with ἐπανορθ. But this is
destroying the antithesis. For as πρὸς διδασκ. and πρὸς ἔλεγχον
are opposed, so, I conceive, are πρὸς ἐπανορῴ. and zpos raid. ; the
former teaching them how to ‘ cease to doevil,” the latter how to
“learn to do well; and having begun with the former, they may
proceed with the latter, ‘‘ going on from strength to strength,” &c.

17. ἵνα ἄρτιος---ἐξηρτισμένος, ‘* So that (by such
aids) the man of God, the teacher of the Gospel (as
1 Tim. 6, 11.), may be complete.” So Etymol. (cited
by Wets.): ἄρτως σημαίνει τὸν ὑγιῆ καὶ πεπληρωμένον.
The words following, πρὸς ---ἐξηρτ. are exegetical of
ἄρτιος. The sense is: ““ thoroughly furnished with

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. III. IV. 329

all that is necessary for his Evangelical office.” So
Katypriopevos, in Luke 6, 40. And in this sense the
word often occurs in Thucyd. As to the reading

ἐξηρτ., it isex emendatione. Itis plain that a know- .

ledge of the doctrines of the Christian revelation
is supposed, as well as that of the Old Testament ;
otherwise no Christian can be ἄρτιος : and indeed
this is hinted at supra ver. 15. By πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν
is meant every duty of a good minister.

CHAP. IV.

Ver. 1. On this statement of the means necessary
for making the man of God or teacher complete for
his good work, the Apostle engrafts an earnest exhor-
tation to the perpetual and zealous use of them. It
is truly observed by Heinr.: “Si in quo alio loco,
ita profecto in hoc cernitur quam apertissimé, quam
intimo ex animi integerrimi et religionis vere stu-
diosissimi recessu hgec promanaverint.”

Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνόπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, “I conjure and
charge thee.” See 1 Tim. ὅ, 21. Here, however,
the clause τοῦ μέλλοντος---αὐτοῦ is added, in order
not merely to express the majesty of Christ (as Ro-
senm. says), but also to suggest the strict and solemn
account which Timothy must have then to give of
his stewardship, and withal, by the τὴν βασιλείαν,
the glorious reward of fidelity. Tor I cannot agree
with Rosenm. and Heinr., who (after the Syr.) sup-
poses an hendiadis at κατὰ τὴν ἐπιφανείαν and καὶ τὴν
βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ. The latter clause must be kept
separate; and the sense is simply, ‘“‘ when he will
establish his kingdom,” 1. 6. (as Benson well ex-
plains) his kingdom of glory, when all things shall
be subjected to God, even the Father, and which
will commence from the day of judgment. His
kingdom does indeed at present exist: but that is
his mediatorial one, meant to bring all things in sub-
jection to his Father.

330 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

Kara, at ; a somewhat rare sense, yet found in
the Classical writers.

2. κήρυξον τὸν λόγον, “ Preach therefore the Gospel
(constantly and firmly).” ‘This exhortation the timi-
dity of Timothy needed. The Apostle now shows
how it must be preached. ᾿Επίστηθι εὐκαίρως, ἀκαίρως,
“ Ply your work vigorously.” For ἐῷιστ. is properly
used of sedulous labour, by which we incumbimus.
See Raphel in loc. With respect to εὐκαίρως, ἀκαίρως
(which form a neat paranomasia and perhaps pro-
verbial expression, denoting παντὶ τρόπω, of which
the Commentators adduce some examples), it is
agreed by the best antient and modern Commenta-
tors, that they must be understood of Timothy, not
of the people. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.): μὴ
ἔστωσοι καιρὸς WPITLEVOS, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐκαίρως, τουτέστιν, ἐν
εἰρήνη: ἐν ἀδείᾳ, καὶ ἐπ’ ἐκκλησίας ὦν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκαίρως,
τουτέστιν, ἐν κινδύνοις ὧν, καὶ ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας, λάλει καὶ
κήρυττε. See also Benson and Heinr. ᾿Ακαίρως may
also signify, ‘‘ even when it is inconvenient to your-
561. For opportunity, or the contrary, as regards
his people, no prudent pastor will overlook. Yet he
will not fail to do his duty, even when it may be
thought by some done ἀκαίρως. So Seneca, Ep. 121.
Virtutes exhortabor, et vitia converberabo ; licet
aliquis nimium immoderatumque in hac parte me
judicet, non desistam.

2. ἔλεγξον, ἐπιτίμησον. Benson renders this: ‘‘ con-
fute the erroneous, reprove the wicked.” But the
ea. rather means, convict, convince them of sin, smite
their consciences. It is a stronger term than ἐπιτιμ.,
and may denote open objurgation ; the other, private
reproof. ἸΙαρακάλεσον. As the ἐλ. and emir. regard
the erring, so this refers to those who have learnt to
do well, and are faithfully striving to perform their
duty. These, then, he is to exhort to continue in the
right path. ‘The next words show the mode in which
this is to be done, where I cannot, with Heinr., take
διδαχῇ to mean the studium alios docendi, but in the

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. lv. 331

usual sense of instruction. Rosenm. considers the
words μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχὴ as an hendiadis for ἐν
πάση διδάχη μακροθύμῳ. But this is unnecessary.
It should seem that καὶ διδαχῇ is put for δίδαξον.
And so (I think) the antients took it. The ἐν pakpo-
θυμίᾳ is, by the antients and most moderns, referred
to all the preceding. And Benson remarks that St.
Paul never mentions patience when he puts Titus on
reproving. Nor can 1 think that he does so with
respect to Timothy ; since there seems something in-
congruous. ‘The expression should seem to be
meant only for the duty immediately preceding,
namely, exhortation: and even Theophyl. acknow-
ledges that it is there by far the most requisite.
Now as καὶ διδαχῇ is put for καὶ δίδαξον, so the ἐν pak-
ροθυμίᾳ may refer to that also; and assuredly there
is need enough of patience in the exercise of both
these duties; and if the Apostle does not mention
μακροθυμία in a similar exhortation to Titus, it might
be from the difference in temper of the two, or dif-
ference in circumstances, or both.

Rosenm. compares Plut. de Liberor. educ. (speak-
ing of judicious parents): διδάσκοντας, ἀπειλοῦντας,
δεομένους, συμιβουλέυοντας. Seneca 1, 14. de Ira:
Corrigendus est qui peccat, et admonitione, et vi, et
molliter, et asperé. Gell. 5, 1. (of a philosopher):
Quum hortatur, monet, suadet, objurgat.

3. ἔσται γὰρ---ἀνέξονται. Whitby and Benson
connect thus: “ Be instant now, and speedily ; for
the time will come,” &c, So Theophyl.: ὥστε πρὶν
ἡ ἐτραχηλισθῆναι αὐτοὺς προκατέλαβε. 1 should prefer
the following mode: “ And need enough is there
of these other ministerial qualifications ; for,” &c.

8. ἔσται yap koipos. The context requires us to
take this of time which should, ere long, arrive
(another hint, Benson observes, of the introduction
of the grand apostacy). Wets. compares the tempus
veniet or erit of Virgil.

3. ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας. See 1 Tim. 1, 10. and
2 Tim. 1, 18. Οὐκ ἀνέξονται, ““ will not endure.”

332 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

Benson here remarks that that is sound doctrine
which promotes a holy life. I can more readily
accede to his following position, that it is the love of
vice which renders men averse to sound doctrine,
and puts them upon following such teachers as will
gratify their humours and inclinations; and please
their ears or fancies, without attacking and con-
demning their opinions or their vices. Mackn. illus-
trates the grand apostacy, especially as it relates to
Popery. The generality of people (he says) nau-
seated the wholesome doctrines of true piety and
sound morality, and only heeded the superstitions
which encouraged them in theirsins. Rosenm. com-
pares Isocrat. ad Demonic. : τοὺς πλείστους εὐρήσομεν,
ὥσπεο τῶν σιτίων, τοῖς ἡδίστοις μάλλον ἤ τοῖς ὑγιαινοτά-
τοις χαίροντας.

3. κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὰς ἰδίας ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισωρεύ-
σουσι.-

Commentators are not agreed whether the clause κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυ-
μίας is to be taken with ἐπισωρ., or with διδασκάλους. The latter
opinion is supported by the antients, and, of the moderns, by Est.,
Doddr., Benson, and most recent Commentators, as Rosenm. and
Heinr. The former method is adopted by almost all the early mo-
derns, and seems to yield a sense more natural and agreeable to the
context. ‘The other requires a harsh transposition, and also the
subaudition of some participle ; whereas, on the former mode of in-
terpretation, the same sense is attained, but in a less violent way.
With respect to ἐπιθυμ., it may be taken as supra, 3, 6., where see
the note. ‘Fhe sense is: “ consulting only their own passions,
whims, and fancies.”

The ἐπισωρεύουσι hints (Heinr. observes) that the number would
be considered more than the merit. It is (I think) more correct to
say that it implies eontempt, and supposes that there will be no want
of persons istius farine.*

The following, κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν, is exegetical of the ἐπιθυ-
pias. Itis an elegant phrase, of which Wets. adduces several ex-
amples, to which I add a passage more important than them all,

* Tt is strange that the Commentators, whoso minutely compare
these marks of the apostacy with the Popish corruptions, should have
failed to notice how strong a resemblance the heaps of teachers here
mentioned bear to the actual state of the Romish Hierarchy, which
in Spain, Portugal, &c. is far more numerous than the spiritual
wants of the people can possibly require, or, indeed, is consistent
with pure morals,

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 333

and which, as treating of Christian teachers, and coming from the
Emperor Julian after the apostacy had commenced, is very curious,
Epist. p. 333. Edit. Prine. δυνάμενοι ras ἀκοὰς ὑμῶν κνηστιῶσαι----
ἱκάνως παρημυθήσασθαι. See also, on this subject, some beautiful
reflections of Philo Jud. 170 p. 207 ἃ 406 Βα The sense is plainly
this: ‘* seeking to have their ears tickled with something, especially
addressed to the passions, flattering their virtues, dealing gently
with their vices, and thus lulling them in a fond security.”

4. καὶ ἀπὸ---ἐκτραπήσονται. The ἀκοὴν is here
again put for the ears; as Luke 7,1. and Acts 17,
29. The sentiment here ‘is nearly the same with
that of the preceding τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ
ἀνέξονται. "Enh τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται, ““ they
will turn to fables.” The term μυθὸς is happily in-
troduced ; since it hints both at the false nature of
the doctrines, and the mythic, story-telling, trifling
nature of the discourses; such being ever employed
ad captandum.* So Isocrat. (cited by Rosenm.):
δεῖ τοὺς βουλομένους ἢ ποιεῖν ἢ γράφειν τι κεχαρισμένον
τοῖς πολλοῖς, μὴ τοὺς ὠφελιμωτάτους τῶν λόγων ϑητεῖν
ἀλλὰ τοὺς μυθωδεσπάτους. And I would compare a
sentiment of the Prince of Historians, 1, 21. ais
λογογράφοι ξυνέθεσαν ἐπὶ τὸ προσαγωγότερον τῇ ἀκροάσει
ἢ ἀληθέστερον, ὄντα ἀνεξέλεγκτα καὶ τὰ πολλὰ ὑπὸ
χρόνου αὐτῶν ἀπίστως ἐπὶ τὸ μυθώδες ἐκνενικηκότα.Ὑ:
See also Pind. Olymp. 1. 44, 8.

It is remarkable the Commentators should not
have compared this point of similarity with the
method ever pursued by the mendicané Friars, at
least of the Romish Church ; though not confined to
them. Of this we have an illustrious example in
the celebrated Portuguese preacher, Vieyra. Nay,
from this mark of the apostacy even the Protestant
Church would not be found free. Intra Iliacos
muros peccatur et extra!

* Τὴ the same manner, the word was plainly taken by Theodoret,
who observes: τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ μυθώδη παιδεύματα, τέρψιν οὐκ ὄνησιν
ἔχοντα.

Τ It is singular that the Editors should not have seen that this
stroke (the ἐπὶ τὸ μυθῶδες) is levelled against the good old story-
teller of Halicarnassus, who, however, after all, delights our youth,
and instructs our age, and is the last work of the kind we lay by.

334 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

5. σὺ δὲ νῆφε---πληροφόρησον. The whole passage,
in which from ch. 2, 14. he had exhorted Timothy to
avoid the pernicious examples of his age, Apostle
concludes with proposing to him his own example.
(Heinr.)

On νῆφε see 1 Thess. 5, 6. and the note. And on
κακοπ. see 2, 3. and the note. Ἐῤαγγελιστοῦ. See
Acts 21, 8. and Eph. 4, 11. and the note. MHeinr.
says, that Euseb. H. Εἰ. 5, 9. calls such διακόνοι ᾽Αποσ-
τόλων, Missionaries. ‘Thus there is added τὴν διακο -
νίαν σου πληροφόρησον, Where dak. siguifies an Ecclesi-
astical ministry ; and πληροῷορ. is a stronger term
than πλήρωσον, and signifies fully accomplish.

6. ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομιαι. The ἐγὼ is emphatical,
as was the σὺ in the last verse; q. d. ‘‘ Do you fully
perform your evangelical duties; nor expect any
further assistance and exhortations from me; for I
(on my part) am already poured upon.” Such is the
literal sense of σπένδομαι; a figurative expression
for ἐπιθανάτιος εἰμι; since the σπονδὴ was poured out
on the victim just before the fatal blow. I would
compare Eurip. Orest. 1237. Aakpiois κατασπένδω σ΄.
HA. ἐγὼ δ᾽ οἴκτοισί ye. This, then, designates his
belief that a violent death was close at hand, which
we know did really happen to him a very short time
afterwards; and therefore the above interpretation
must be thought very striking, and probably true.
There is, however, some difference of opinion on the
force of the metaphor. Some think it signifies: “ I
am being poured out unto God as a libation, to seal
my ministry with my blood.” So Chrys., Theophyl.,
and Gicumen. Most recent Commentators think
that it only signifies, “ My strength is wholly dis-
solved and gone ;” as Ps. 22,15. “1 am poured out
like water.” And they refer to Phil. 2,17. But
the passage of Phil. is not quite apposite; and the
sense assigned is not so natural.

The words following are exegetical , “ The time
of my dissolution or departure is at hand.”

7. This image the Apostle follows up with ano-

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv. 835

ther, derived (as often) e re agonistica ; on which
see the note on 1 Tim. 6, 12. ᾿Αγωνίϑεσθαι is a depo-
nent; and in the preterite it signifies to accomplish
any combat. “Aywvigerba: τὸν καλὸν ἀγώνα, to fight
the glorious fight, seems to have been a proverbial
phrase for obtaining the vietory and gaining a prize. *
On τὸν δρόμιον τετέλεκα see Acts 90, 24. Τὴν πίστιν
τετήρκα. Most Commentators, antient and modern,
explain τὴν πίστιν, the Christian religion. Most re-
cent ones, fidelity ; which indeed seems a preferable
sense, and includes the other; 4. 4. “ Ihave kept my
pledged faith to further the Christian religion.”
This, too, is supported by the usage of the Classical
writers, ‘con whom Wets. atiduces: examples, which,
in a doubtful case, should decide the point. See
also 1 Tim. 5, 12.

8. λοιπὸν, iadicelnid μοι ὃ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος.
See 1 Thess. 2, 19. and Col. 1, ὅ. Crowns and all
sorts of prizes held forth to conquerors were said ἀπο-
κεῖσθαι, because they were set apart as their due, and
ready for them. So Demophilus Similit. p. 615.
(cited by Wets.) τοῖς μὸ σταδιοδρομοῦσιν ἐ ἐπὶ τῷ τέρ-
ματι τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς νίκης--- ἀπόκειται : and Hesych.:
ἀπόκειται, ἐτοίμασται. Ladd Suid. : στεφανικὸντέλεσμαι"
and Pind. Olymp. 10, 9. ἀφθονότατος δ᾽ aivos Ὀλυμ-
πιανίκαις Οὖὔὖτος ἄγκειται (for ἀνάκειται). With the
ὃ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος I would compare Plut.
Symp. L. 3, 2,1. στέφανος εὐσεβείας. See the note
on Gal. 1,15. ᾿Αποδώσει, “ will give a remunera-
tion.” So Matt. 6, 4, 16, 27. and infra 14. and else-
where. ‘Ey ἐκείνη ἡμέρᾳ, i. 6. the day of judgment.
See the note on 1, 12. Ὁ δίκαιος κριτής. Rosenm.

¥ Among the passages cited by Wets. is Thueyd. 7, 59. ἐνόμισαν
καλὸν ἀγῶνα σφισιν εἰναι ἐπὶ τῇ γεγενημένῃ γίκῃ τῆς ναυμαχίας,
ἐλεῖν τε τὸ στρατόπεδον ἄπαν τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων. But this (as I shall
elsewhere show) is of a different nature. More apposite is Eurip.
Alc. 648. καέτοι καλὸν γ᾽ ἂν τόνδ᾽ ἀγῶν ἡγωνίσω, τοῦ σοῦ πρὸ ποιδὸς
κατθανῶν. Heinr, compares Herm. Trismeg. L. 4. ἡ ψυχὴ τὸν τῆς
εὐσεβείας ἀγῶνα ἡγωνισμένη. I add Philo 69 Ε. καλὸν δρόμον,
καὶ πάντων ἀριστὸν ἀγώνισμα τοῦτο νικῶν.

336 2 TIMOTHY, CIIAP. IV.

regards the dix. as emphatical ; q. d. “ the just Judge,
who does nothing like frail mortals, through lucre,
or favour to the undeserving.” The expression τοῖς
ἠἡγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφανείαν αὐτοῦ designates those who
have been faithful worshippers of God, who have
well discharged their duties towards him and towards
their fellow-creature, and have thence reason to feel
pleasure at the thought of their Lord’s advent. The
past tense is used (as Rosenm. remarks) with refer-
ence to the fame of the judgment; 4. d. ““ἴο those who
shali have loved and hailed his advent.” This is not
said in the spirit of boasting, but to excite Timothy
and others to aim at so glorious a prize, and accus-
tom themselves to look forward with joy to the com-
ing of the Lord. ‘There is something very touching
in the picture drawn of himself from ver. 6—fin.
It is, as far as I know, unparalleled, except in the
great Archetype of all perfection, whom he copied.
‘There is, however, some faint resemblance of it in
Xenophon’s beautiful description of the manner in
which Socrates spent the few hours previous to lay-
ing down his life as a martyr in the cause of truth
and virtue.

10. δήμας γὰρ pe ἐγκατέλιπεν, ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν
αἰώνα, 4. d. “ For (I need some assistance), Demas
having forsaken me.” Ηρ, it seems, through cow-
ardice, deserted him, and, through wordly-minded-
ness, preferred temporal advantage to the assisting
the Apostle and furthering the Gospel. For such
seems to be meant by ἀγαπ. τὸν νῦν aimva. And
ayaray often signifies to love in preference, to prefer.
Rosenm. compares the ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῖς τοῦ βίου
πραγματείαις in 2'Tim. 2, 2. ; and thinks that as this
Demas was going to Thessalonica, he had entered
into some commercial business. Which, and other
‘speculations, I leave tn medio, referring the reader to
Benson, &c.

Crescens is thought to have been one of Czsar’s
household (see Phil. 4, 22.); perhaps the freedman
mentioned by Tacit. Hist. 1. What Titus’s business

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 337

was in Dalmatia we are not told. Probably that of
the Gospel; for scarcely any thing else would have
induced him to leave the Apostle at so critical a
time.

11. Λουκᾶς----διακονίαν. Luke, after another journey,
which he has described at the end of the Acts, re-
mained in Italy with Paul. See Col. 4, 14. Of Mark
it issaid ἐστι μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν, 1. e. “ he is
and will be useful to me in the ministry,” namely,
as the best Commentators are agreed, of the Gospel ;
and this, they conjecture, by his knowledge of the
Latin tongue. That, too, would make him useful in
many ways. This is (as Benson remarks) a proof
that Paul and Mark were reconciled after the slight
difference recorded at Acts 15, 38 and 39. Yet
some think the Mark here mentioned is not the
same.

12. τυχικὸν δὲ ἀπέστειλα eis”Egeoov. ‘This person,
a native of Proconsular Asia (Acts 20,4.) was a fre-
quent companion of Paul. See Tit. 3,13. Eph. 6,
21. Col. 4, 7. The Apostle had doubtless sent
Tychichus to Ephesus, in order to supply Timothy’s
place ; so that there might be nothing to prevent his
coming.

13. τὸν φαινόλην. There are few points in the
New Testament more unsettled than the true read-
ing and right interpretation of this word. It is
written φαιλώνης, φελώνη, φελόνη, φελώνης, and Paivo-
ays. Probably the first and last reading are the most
correct: for Φαινόλης is justly thought to be the
same with the Latin penula, and in the other there
is only a metathesis. ‘The etymology is too uncer-
tain to be any guide to the sense. ‘There are (and
were among the antients) two opinions: 1. that of
most Commentators, as Luther, Grot. Bartholin,
Ferrarius (who wrote on the dress of the antients),
and Stosch de Pallio, suppose it to have been a rough
great coat, or wrapper, which Schoettg. says, was
called by the Jews mrp. That of some antients,
the Syr., Masius in a Dissertation on this subject,

VOL. VIII. Ζ

338 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV.

Moldehauer, and others, and-especially the learned
Schleus. (to whom I am indebted for much of the
foregoing detail), who suppose it to have been a
book-case, γλωσσόκομον, or capsula. And this is sup-
ported by Hesych., Abberti Gloss. Bibl. Cocol., and
Zonar. Lex. 1801. See also Suic. Thess. 2, 1422.;
Ducang. Gloss., and the Commentators or Pollux
729., and especially the Crit. Sacr., Pole’s Syn., and
Wolf’s Curae. Perhaps it was like what our old authors
call a cloak-bag, or portmanteau; and in this Paul
had probably left the books and parchments, since it
would be very fit for such a purpose. What was
the nature of the MSS. and what were the books,
which might be very small and unbound, we are left
in the dark; and on a point so uncertain I shall for-
bear to hazard any opinion.

14. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ---ἐνεδείξατο. ‘The person mentioned
at Acts 19, 33. and 1 Tim. 1, 20. the brasier. Though
some doubt whether he was the same. ’Evede(Earo is
for ἐποιήσατο; yet it is a more expressive term. So
Gen. 50, 15 and 17. ὅτι πονηρὰ σοι ἐνεδείξατο. Hymn.
3 Puer. κακὰ ἐνδεικνυμένη, and elsewhere. (See
Schleus. Lex. V.T.) Were it not for this, I should
have suspected it to be a Latinism; for exhibere is
sometimes used for patrare and _facere.

At the imprecation (as it is called) in ἀποδώη αὐτῷ
ὁ Κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, unbelievers find much to
censure: and the defence made by Commentators
has not been so satisfactory as might be wished,
especially that of Heinr. and others. Rosenm. and
Jaspis urge that the Apostle justly imprecated him,
as an enemy of God and the Gospel, and for his in-
corrigible malice: which, Jaspis observes, is one,
though not the only, cause of the imprecations in the
Psalms. And they might have added, that the man
was in all probability an apostate. At the same time
I cannot but agree with the antients, and several
eminent moderns, that there is here, properly speak-
ing, no imprecation, but rather a prediction, or a
wish for his condign punishment, 1. e. that the righ-

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 339

teous God and Judge will treat him as he deserves.
As to the reading ἀποδώσει, it is a paradiorthosis.

Of this man the Apostle bids Timothy beware,
(q. d. ‘* Hic niger est, hunc tu Romane caveto”), be-
cause, he adds, λίαν ἀνθβέστηκε τοῖς ἡμετέροις Aoyois,
which some interpret of opposing and replying to his
defence; most, however, of his opposing the doctrine
of Paul. It may mean even the Gospel itself.

16. ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ pov ἀπολογίᾳ----ἐγκατέλιπον. On
the exact nature of this ἀπολογία, and in what sense
it is to be understood, Commentators are not agreed.
(See Pole’s Syn., Wolf, Benson, and Heinr. Proleg.)
It is generally supposed to mean the time of his first
imprisonment, during which he had gone through
an examination, and been allowed a hearing; as
when it was said, “ Paul, thou art permitted to
speak for thyself.” And so Acts 22, 1. ἠκούσατε μου
ἀπολογίας. Compare 1 Pet. 3, 15.* During the
second ἀπολογία or confinement, they say, this Epis-
tle was written. And, as we learn from Ecclesiasti-
cal History, this second hearing or trial turned out
very different ; since the brutal Emperor, in a rage
(as Chrys. tells us) at his conversion of the royal cup-
bearer, had him beheaded.

Συμπαρεγένετο is thought to refer to the custom
of the friends or patrons of any person going with
him as advocates and pleaders. So Donatus ad
᾿ς Terent. (cited by Rosenm.): “ Adesse dicuntur
amici aut advocati in foro periclitantibus.”

16. μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη, “1 wish and pray God it
may not be imputed to them.” So Rom. 5, 8. ὦ οὐ
μὴ λογίσηται Κύριος ἁμαρτίαν. Job. 84, 17. τοῦτο μοι
ἄρα ἀνομία ἡ μεγίστη λογισθείη. Schol. on Eurip. Med.
156. ἐκείνῳ τόδε τὸ ἁμάρτημα μὴ λογίϑου. ‘Though, as
Theophyl. remarks, it was a great sin worthy to be
imputed. This benevolent prayer, so much in ac-

* Benson, however, sees no reason for supposing that this apo-
logy was made during the Apostle’s first confinement at Rome : but,
from verses 6, 7, 8,17, and 18. (he thinks) there are sufficient
grounds to suppose the contrary.

Ζ 2

310, 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

cordance with our Lord’s words on a similar occa-
sion, seems in contrast with the words just uttered of.
Alexander. But it is rightly supposed by Benson
that, as the Apostle had the gift of discerning spirits,
he could know that in one case the conduct pro-
ceeded from unmingled malice, in the other purely
from human frailty: which will account for the dif-
ferent ways in which they are spoken of; though
this will not warrant any man, destitute of the same
gift and authority, to denounce or foretell the like
evil to any man whatever.”

By πάντας the Commentators understand very
many, so that very few remained with him. But this
is unauthorized and precarious.

17. ὁ δὲ Κύριος μοι παρέστη. The παρέστη must be
understood figuratively, i. 6. was by me and with
me, by secretly helping and supporting me. So
(Heinr. observes) Homer says of Minerva in respect
to Achilles παρέστη. Compare Ps. 109, 31. Acts 27,
23. The words kal ἐνεδυνάμωσέ show how that help
was especially communicated, namely by infusing
courage, and imparting (ἐν) ability. So Theophyl. :
ἐχαρίσατο παῤῥησίαν. ‘Thus Col. 1, 11. ἐν radon δυνά-
pees δυναμουμένοι, and elsewhere; and also Aristid.
cited by Wets.: ἀγώνισαι πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ, δυνάμιεος δὲ
μελήσει τώ θεώ. By κήρυγμα is here meant the word
preached, the Gospel; as 1 Cor. 15, 14. Ilanpodo-
ρηθη, “ might obtain full credence.” See Rom. 4,
21. Luke 1,11. Πάντα is to be taken, Heinr. and
Rosenm. say, populariter, for “many of different
nations,” i. 6. who had business at the court. But
they and other Commentators (as Doddr.) are wrong
in supposing that the words are to be referred to his
defence only. hey refer to the preaching of the
Gospel by him during his long confinement, by
which in a manner all the nations might be said to
hear it; since Rome was the resort of persons from
every nation of the civilized world, individuals from
each of which would hear the Gospel, and carry
tidings of it, or diffuse its doctrines, in their respec-

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 341

tive countries. So Theoph.: ἵνα κατάδηλος πᾶσι γέ-
νηται καὶ τοῦ κηρύγματος ἡ δόξα, καὶ τῆς περὶ ἐμιὲ προ-
νοίας ἡ κηδεμιονία.

17. καὶ ἐῤῥύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος. Some would
take this literally, as referring to 1 Cor. 15, 52. But
the context shows that it is to be understood of the
emperor Nero. And so the antients and most mo-
derns. And yet it is not clear to me that there is
(as they say) an allusion to Nero’s cruelty. The lion,
being the king of beasts, was a fit, and indeed com-
mon image to designate any monarch invested with
despotic power; examples of which signification,
both Scriptural and Classical, are produced by the
Commentators; as Esth. 14, 13. &c. The phrase
ῥύεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ λέοντος, to denote being delivered
from a very great danger, is easy to be accounted
for: but there is probably an allusion to a well
known fable of AXsop: for Paul's deliverance at
court, which might be called the lion’s den, would
justify the expression in almost its literal sense.

18. καὶ ῥύσεταί με ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ,
« And the Lord wild (I trust) deliver me from every
evil work,” i. 6. all dangers, temptations, and cala-
mities; for such appears to be the simplest interpre-
tation of ἔργου πονηροῦ, on which the recent Commen-
tators seek needless refinements. ‘The propriety of
language will not permit it to be interpreted, with
them, ‘‘ from every work of the Devil.” Compare
1 Kings 17, 57. 2 Cor. 1, 11. I would observe,
that though Wets. adduces a passage of Dionys.
Hal., where this very phrase occurs, yet it is ina
very different sense. ‘The use in question may be
regarded as a Hebraism. As to the term πονηρὸς, it
often signifies dangerous, or unfavourable in any
respect. See Schleus. Lex.

18. καὶ σώσει---ἐπουράνιον, ‘ and he will (I humbly
hope and devoutly pray) bring me safe unto his
heavenly kingdom.” The ellipsis in σώξειν εἰς τόπον
τινὰ, by which some verb of carrying is omitted, is

342 2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. Iv.

found in the best writers, from whom many examples
are adduced by Wets. |

This pious profession of trust in the Lord was (as
well as the whole of the preceding detail of personal
traits) meant as a hint to Timothy and others to fol-
low his example ; suitable to which is the fine doxo-
logy that follows.

19. "Acracas Πρίσκαν καὶ ᾿Ακύλαν, ““ salute Prisca
and Aquila ;” whom Paul had left at Ephesus. (Acts
18, 19.) See however Doddr. ‘Theophyl. says
Prisca is put first, as being more zealous in the cause
of the Gospel.

19. καὶ τὸν ᾿Ονησιφόρου οἶκον. It is little surprising
that the Popish Commentators should chuse to infer
from this salutation to the family of Onesiphorus,
that he himself was dead (for on that slender foun-
dation they chiefly found the gainful doctrine of
prayers and masses for the dead), but that many
eminent Protestant Commentators, as Grot. and
Rosenm., should do the same, is amazing. For, as
Benson observes, he might be gone from Rome, and
yet not be at Ephesus, when the Apostle wrote this
Epistle: or Onesiphorus might possibly be the bearer
of this letter. But the best argument with the
Romanists, is to urge that all the antients are agreed
that he was not dead. ‘They, however, say that he
was yet at Rome: which, I confess, from supra 1,
16. (where see the note), appears not so probable.
Heinr. maintains that in both places it may signify,
by a familiar idiom, Onesiphorus and his family.
And he compares of ἀμφὶ τὸν Σωκράτη. But this
appears precarious. It is sufficient to say that there
is no proof that he was dead, and little probability ;
since οἶκον would not have been so used On the
other hand, nothing is more probable than that he
might be, to Paul’s certain knowledge, at some
other place, and not Ephesus. ‘Though, as to what
Benson urges, that the strongest argument for
proving Onesiphorus alive, is that St. Paul prays for
him, since he no where prays for the dead, or any of

2 TIMOTHY, CHAP. IV. 343

the Apostles ; that, in discussing the doctrine with a
Romanist, can be no argument at all. It is taking
for granted what is to be proved.

20—22. "Epacros. See Rom. 16, 23., Acts 19, 23.
Τρόφιμον. See Acts 20, 4, 20, 4., 21, 29. The fol-
lowing Greek names are of frequent occurrence. Of
the persons we know nothing. Linus, the antients
tell us, was afterwards the first Bishop of Rome. By
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες we may suppose that the persecu-
tion had not entirely dispersed the Christians, but
that some vestiges of a congregation (for such the
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ imports) still remained.

On the salutation compare Gal. 6, 18., and the
note.

344

EPISTLE TO TITUS.

This Epistle bears a strong resemblance to 1 Tim.
(on which see Paley ap. Valpy.) Benson thinks
the great design of it was to animate Titus, a Gen-
tile convert and Evangelist, and Bishop of Crete,
to oppose the Judaizing Christians. ‘This is, how-
ever, too hypothetical a representation; and the
design of the Apostle would seem to be far more
general.

CHAP. I.

VersE 1. κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ. The best
Commentators are agreed that κατὰ here, as at 1
Tim., 1, 1., denotes end and tendency: and ἐκλ. Θεοῦ
signifies, all faithful and sincere Christians. ‘The
sense, then, is: ‘ in order to the propagation of the
faith of sincere Christians, and in order to the
acknowledgment or better knowledge of the truth
which is conformable to true virtue.” (See 1 Tim.,
2,4.) Or it may simply be interpreted, with The-
ophyl., religious truth. Now the truth is tacitly
opposed to the errors of Judaism, or lies of Heathen-
ism.

2, ἐπ᾽ éaridi—aiwviov. Heinr. and Rosenm. take
the ἐπὶ to have the sense of the κατὰ just before, i. 6.
“to the end.” So εἰς ἐλπίδα. See Gal. 5, 13., 1
Thess., 4,'7., 2 Tim., 2, 14. Most Commentators
take ἐπ᾿ ἐλπιδι for ἐν ἐλπίδι ; as Acts 2, 26,, for 1
Cor., 9, 10. ; and they connect the words with δοῦ-

TITUS, CHAP. I. 345

λος --οΧριστοῦ. But the former sense is the more
natural and extensive, and worthy of the Apostle.
The wis αἰωνίου, Theophyl. thinks, is levelled
against the Jews, who only looked totemporal rewards.

2. ὁ ἀψευδὴς Θεὺς, PINS ON. “A title (says Heinr.),
ascribed by the Heathens to their Gods.’* ‘The
ἐπηγγείλατο appears, from the antithetical ἐφανέρωσε,
to carry a notion of obscurely promising. 80
Rosenm.: “In V. T. quidem vita eterna non est
promissa expressis verbis ; promissa sunt vero multa
et maxima bona per Messiam expectanda, quorum
maximum est certissima spes eterne felicitatis.”

Πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. See on 2 'Tim., 1, 9.

3. ἐφανέρωσε, “hath plainly revealed it.” So 2
Tim., 1, 10., φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν. With καίροις ἰδίοις
compare 1 Tim., 2, 6. (and the note), and Acts 1, 7.
Ἔν κηρύγματι, “ by the preaching of the Gospel.” So
2'Tim., 4, 17., and elsewhere. Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ. Our Translators render, “by
the commandment of God.” (On which see the note
of Mackn.) This, however, is not very satisfactory ;
and, therefore, though this phrase has the above
sense at Rom. 16, 26., yet I prefer, with the best
modern Commentators, rendering it here, as also at
1 Tim., 1, 1., et alibi, “according to the will of
God,” or more literally, ordinance of God.

4. γνησίῳ τέκνω kK. Κι π. Compare 1 Tim., 1, 2.
ἹΚοινὴν, ““ common to Jews and Gentiles.” So Benson
and Heinr., the former of whom compares Jud. 3.,
2 Pet., 1,1. Butit should rather seem to signify,
“common to us both.” So Hilary, Beza, and
Rosenm. Menoch. explains, “" common to all Chris-
tians.” But that is too vague. The two last inter-
pretations may be united.

Χ άρις---ἡμών. See note on 1 Tim., 1, 2.

* Of Wetstein’s examples the only apposite ones are the follow-
ing, Eurip. Or. 364., ἀψευδὴς θεὸς" lian V. H. 14, 48., τῷ Nypei—
ὕνπερ ἀληθῆ τε καὶ ἀψευδῆ ἀκονομεν, Aristot. Polit. 2., οὐκ ἐστι
πάντη ἄρα ἀψευδὲς τὸ δαιμόνιον τε καὶ θεῖον : παντάπασι μὲν, ἔφη.

I add Pind. Olymp. 6, 114. (of Saturn), ψευδέων ἄγνωστον.

346 TITUS, CHAP. I.

5. τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐ. K. By the κατέλι-
πον and the ἐπιδιορθώσαι it is implied, that Paul had
been there himself, and laid the foundation for the
Ecclesiastical settlement of the Island. The Apostle
here reminds Titus of the purpose for which he had
left him (which, Grot. says, had been at the time
he left Timothy at Ephesus), namely, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα
ἐπιδιορθώση, 1. 6. literally, ‘that thou mightest further
set right, or in order, the things which remained to
be rectified, or which were imperfect and wanted
completing, in my plans.” So Theophyl.: ἵνα ἐπιδι-
ogwon τὰ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐλλειφθέντα. Such seems the
best founded interpretation, and it is supported by
the antients and the best moderns. Wets. aptly
cites Plut. 2, 535, 14., χρηστὰς ὑπογράφεις ἡμῖν ἐλπίδας
καὶ περὶ τῆς τῶν λειπόντων ἐπιδιορθώσεως" and Plut. 10,
844. E.,iva ἐπανορθώσηται τὰ ἐλλείποντα. which suffi:
ciently “wustifies the slight incongruity in the mixture
of the metaphors. The ἐπιδιορῆ. ordinare, (τοί. and
Rosenm., from an ill founded scruple, would render
ordinare; though indeed ordinare would, in this
context, imply setting right, &c. It is well remarked
by Theodoret: ἔδειξεν ὡς αὐτὸς ἔθηκε τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας
θεμέλιον, κατέλιπον yap σε, φησὶν, ἵνα τὰ ἐλλείποντα δι-
ορθώση. The ἐπὶ denotes succession and continu-
ation.

5. καὶ καταστήσῃς. The καὶ may mean and
especially. The verb καθ. is, as Heinrichs observes,
used of the chusing and appointing any one to an
office ; and nothing can be more clear than that the
whole business was vested in Titus. Κατὰ πόλιν,

* Hence the observation of Theophyl. on the humility of the
Apostle in taking all the labour, and leaving Timothy all the credit
and honour, by appointing Presbyters, is ill founded. For as the
foundations of the Ecclesiastical establishment were probably laid
by Paul, it would have been premature to appoint Presbyters.

+ By this passage our Presbyterian brethren are, not without
reason, put to great straits. The shifts to which they are driven
may be conceived, when the sensible and pious Doddr. resorts to
the disingenuous device of explaining it of the interposition of Titus
(i.e. with the congregations), which, he adds, would have great
weight with them.

TITUS, CHAP. I. 34:7

“in every city where there is a congregation of
Christians.” It is, with reason, supposed that many
of these were but fowns ;* and the use of πόλις by the
best Classical writers justifies this. ‘Qs ἐγώ σοι διεταξ-
ayy, “4851 (on leaving you) directed you (in due
time) to do.’”’ Paul, it seems, had given the direc-
tion, but had not time to add the injunctions as to
the qualifications; and these therefore he now fur-
nishes him with: and we may presume that no long
time had elapsed since Paul had left the Island,
when he wrote this Epistle.

6. Compare 1 Tim. 3,2., and the notes. Τέκνα
ἔχων πιστὰ, “having his children well regulated,
trained in a sober and religious education.” Com-
pare 1 Tim., 3, 4 ἃ 5, 10., Μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας,
for μὴ κατηγορεῖσθαι ἀσωτίας, “not to be justly
accused of a disorderly life.’ Ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, ““ dis-
obedient and disorderly.” (See 1 Tim., 3, 4.) For
he who cannot keep his own family in order, how
can he be fit to be entrusted with the management
of the great family of a Church.

7, 8. δεῖ γὰρ---οἰκονόμον. The Apostle repeats that
the Presbyter shall be ἀνέγκλητος. So 1 Tim., 3, 2.,
δεῖ ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι. He here adds ws Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον ;
for, as Rosenm. observes, if fidelity is required in
the administration of perishable earthly things,
(1 Cor., 4, 2.), how much more is it required in the
steward of spiritual affairs! Oixovopov, i. e. the
manager of God’s house or family, such as is every
church. So in our fine Collect for Good Friday,
‘** Behold thon thy family, for which our Lord Jesus
Christ,” &c. Though sometimes a whole body is
considered as one general family ; as 1 Tim., 3, 15.-++

* These words πόλις, urbs, and town, which have given so much
trouble to the Etymologists, appear to have one common idea, that
of hedging, inclosing, walling, &c., in opposition to open villages.
For πόλις is cognate with πόλος, a circle ; and urbs is cognate with
orbis ; and town comes from the Angl. Sax. Tynan, to enclose en-
compass.

_ + Heinr. compares Soph. Antig. 671., ἐν τοῖς γὰρ οἰκείοισι ὅστις
ἐστ᾽ ἀνὴρ Χρῆστος, φανεῖται κἀν πόλει δίκαιος ὧν. 1 would add

348 TITUS, CHAP. I.

The αὐθάδη here answers to the φιλαυτὸς at 1 Tim.,
3,2. It isexplained αὐταρεστὸς, self-willed, proud,
&c. Seea spirited sketch of the αὐθάδης in Theophr.
Char. Eth. C. 15., Edit. Ast., and consult Stanley
and Blomf. on Aischyl. P. V. 64. The ὀργίλον has
no place in the former list; but it is nearly allied to
the αὐθάδη. It signifies passionate. As to the other
terms in this and the next verse, they have been
explained at 1 Tim., 3, 2 ἃ 3. On αἰσχροκερδή,
Wets. cites Polyb. 6, 44., καθόλου ὁ περὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν
τρόπος οὕτως ἐπιχωριάϑει παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, ὥστε παρὰ μόνοις
τοῖς κρησὶ τών ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων μηδὲν αἰσχρὸν νομίϑεσ-
θαι κέρδος." ‘The ἐγκρατῆ denotes, him who holds in
restraint all his passions of every kind (See Theo-
phyl.); which, as Priceus observes, implies absti-
nence even from what is lawful. In which view he
cites from Cicero: “ Nulla re conciliare facilius
benevolentiam multitudinis possunt 11 qui, &c., pra-
sunt, quam abstinentia et continentia.

The φιλάγαθον signifies a lover of good men, or of
goodness, or both. The term is somewhat rare: but
it occurs in Sir. 7, 22., and Dionys. Areiop., cited
by Suic. Thes. in p.; and also Aristot. Rhet. c. 2,
4., Cod. Vet. (which is the true reading; for the
common one, τοὺς φιλεῖν ἀγάθους, is plainly from
emendation.) On the δίκαιον and ὅσιον [ add Diod.
Sic. 2, 610., Dionys. Hal. 2, 697., and Schol. on
Eurip. Hec. 788.

9. ἀντεχόμιενον----λόγου, ““ adhering to the faithful
doctrine according as he has been taught.” ᾽Αντέ-
χεσθαι signifies, properly, to hold fast by any thing, in

Cowper’s Task, L. 5., p. 131., ‘ For when was public virtue to be
found where private virtue was not? ” &c.

* But if by this Wets. would hint that the Apostle has any
reference to the base avarice of the Cretans, he is mistaken. For
the same remark would hold good of every one of the virtues here
enjoined ; the Cretans being stained with all the opposite vices ; of
which those who have read the antients, can require no proof. It
is strange that Theodoret should affirm (at least by implication)
that this is the only Island to which the Apostle carried the Gospel.
He forgets Melita. ;

TITUS, CHAP. I. 349

opposition (ἀντι) to one who would wrest it away: a
signification often used in the metaphorical sense of
the Classical writers. (See the examples of Rosenm.)
Pricaeus, with the approbation of Rosenm., would
add pov from 2 Tim. But this is very uncritical. It
may very well be understood; though it also implies
the doctrine Paul had been taught by Christ. ‘Thus
the διδα χὴ πιστοῦ λόγου is a periphrasis for the Gospel,
the Christian religion.

At παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ Pric. and Rosenm.
would supply μένειν. But this is too arbitrary.
Παρακαλεῖν here simply signifies to instruct and, as
we say, instruct in. Besides, this answers to the
διδακτικὸν at 1 Tim. At the same time, this στηρίϑειν
is implied in the communication of sound doctrine,
and the silencing of objectors. ‘The force of by. 4:3.
has been explained at 1 Tim., 1, 10., and elsewhere.
It is here truly remarked by Theophyl.: “Oye μήτε
τοῖς ἐχθροῖς μάχεσθαι, καὶ αἰχμαλωτίϑειν πᾶν νόημα εἰς
τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μήτε τοὺς οἰκείους παρακαλεῖν
καὶ νουθετεῖν καὶ στηρίξειν δυνάμενος, ψευδεπίσκοπός ἐστι.

10. εἰσὶ γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἀνυπότακτοι, &c. ‘The καὶ is
in many MSS., with the approbation of eminent
Critics, omitted; but on very insufficient grounds ;
for we can account for its omission, but not for its
insertion. ‘The particle is often omitted, when it
seems useless, but ἐδ not. So here it may either be
rendered, with Rosenm., and those ; or rather, “ for
many, ¢oo, there are,” i. e. many there are as well
possessing the foregoing virtues, as the subsequent
vices.

On the terms which follow, it is not necessary to
refine, or to force them into an exact counterpart to
the preceding virtues: a formal regularity very
foreign to the Apostle’s style. Avuréraxro: signifies
disorderly, unruly, insubordinate, i. e. in respect to
the sound doctrine mentioned above, and the
teachers of it. This would be likely to be the case,
especially with the Judaizers, from their characteris-
tic stiff-neckedness, and little relish for spiritual doc-.

350 TITUS, CHAP. I.

trines, in comparison with external and carnal ordi-
nances. Ματαιολόγοι vain talkers, triflers, &c., those
mentioned at 1 Tim., 1, 6., ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολο-
γίαν. On the φρεναπάται we may compare Eph. 5;
6, κενοῖς λόγοις ἀπατῶντες" Rom. 16, 18., τὰς τών
ἀκάκων καρδίας ἐξαπατῶντες" 2 Tim., 8, 18., πλανώντες
καὶ πλανόμενοι. So Theophyl.: καὶ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἄλλους
ἀπατῶν. By the οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς are meant Jewish
Christians. ‘That Crete, standing in the midway
between Palestine and the civilized world, and so
opportune for both, should swarm with Jews, were
of itself probable, and it is confirmed by Josephus
and Philo. See Wets.

11. ods δεῖ ἐπιστομιίϑειν, bridle in, restrain, silence,
namely, by the exercise of powerful reasoning, and
Episcopal discipline. ᾿Επιστομίϑειν signifies, properly,
to put a bridle, ἐπὶ τῴ στόματι; as 2 Kings, 19, 28.,
Is. 37, 29. Hence it often signifies, metaphorically,
to check any one, reduce to silence, Φιμοῦν (2 Pet., 2,
15.) Wets. adduces many examples, to which I add
Joseph. 778., τὴν vewreporoiay ἐπιστ' Philostr. V. A.
3, 28., τὸν τύφον ἐπιστ' and Liban. Or. Parent. on
Julian ap. Fabr. B. Gr. 7, 18., ἐνέφραξε τῇ καρτερίᾳ
τοῖς πονηροτάτοις τὰ στόματα.

11. οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσι, “inasmuch as
they subvert (the faith of) whole families.” So
2Tim., 2,18., τὴν πίστιν ἀνατρέπουσιν. Of this sort
were those described at 2 Tim., 3, 6., οἱ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς
Tous οἰκίας, καὶ αἰχμιαλωτίϑοντες τὰ γυναικάρια" where
the αἰχμ. includes laying them under contribution,
and answers to the διδάσκοντες ἃ pa δεῖ, αἰσχροῦ κέρδους
of the present passage. Compare Matt. 23, 14. The
Commentators notice the litotes in ὦ μὴ dei as Is.
66, 4., ἃ μὴ ἐβουλόμην. So also Joh. 21, 18., καὶ οἴσει
ὅπου οὐ θέλεις.

* And so Joseph. Bell. 1, 17. (cited by Heinr.), οἵκους λαμπροτά-
τους ὅλους ἀνατρέπεσθαι" and the totos domus et familias evertere. of
the Latins ; as Juvenal and Cicero. To which I add Plato 960 r.,
ὅλας οἰκίας χρημάτων χάριν ἐπιχειροῦσι κατ᾽ ἄκρας ἐξαιρεῖν" and
Athen, 274 £., ὁ γὰρ κόλαξ---καὶ τὰς 'πολεις ἀνατρέπει.

TITUS, CHAP. I. 351

12. εἶπέ ris—doyai, “ one of their own poets,” &c.

For προφήτης, like vates, was a term often applied, out of com-
pliment, to denote a poet, to hint at the inspiration that was pre-
sumed to reside in him. This was indeed chiefly confined to the
earlier and greater ones, as Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Mu-
seus, &c.; but afterwards assumed by, or conceded to, poets in
general. It was, however, very applicable to Epimenides, from
whom this quotation is, [ think, ascertained to be taken, since he
was one of the earlier bards ; and he is said to have written epi
χρησμῶν. (See Fabr. Bibl. Gr.) Theophyl., too, here says, that he
was one of the wisest of the Greeks, and θειασμοῖς καὶ ἀποτροπιάσ-
μοις προσέχων, καὶ μαντικὴν δοκῶν κατορθοῦν (a pretty flower of
speech picked up, by the way, from Thucyd. 7, 50. speaking of
Nicias).

With respect to the qualities here ascribed to the Cretans, the
ψεῦσται, eternal liars, is completely justified : for such were they to
a proverb. So Diogen. in Pan.: Κρητίξειν, ἐπὶ τὸ ψεύδεσθαι. And
as such it is often found in the Classical writers. See Wetstein’s
examples, which fully prove the ill repute in which the Cretans
were held.* To these Ladd Suidas: τρία κάππα κάκιστα, Καππαδο-
kia, καὶ Κρήτη, καὶ Κιλικία. Leon Tarent. ap. Brunch Anal. 1, 242.
"Acet δήισται Kal ἀλιφθόροι, οὐδὲ δίκαιοι Κρῆτες" τις Κρητῶν οἷδε δι-
καιοσυγὴν 5

With respect to the κακὰ θηρία, it seems to mean malignant fero-
cious brutes; a sense in which θηρία is not unfrequently used, like
the correspondent terms in all languages; as the Hebrew pa
(whence the Germ. Bauen, and the English boor), our brute, &c.

The γαστέρες ἀργαί, is by Dr. Hunt and Benson explained swit-

* The origin of the bad character of the Cretans is by Bp. War-
burton, Div. Leg. 1, 159. ascribed to their having, by claiming the
honour of showing Jupiter's tomb, proclaimed what was carefully
concealed from the vulgar, that all the Gods were only mortals
raised to divine honours for benefits conferred on their country or
mankind. For this the learned prelate was indebted to Chrysostom
and Theophyl., who probably borrowed it from some of the Clas-
sical writers ; since Callim. Hymn on Jove 8. (cited by Wets.) says:
Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, καὶ yap τάφον, ὦ ἄνα, σεῖο Κρῆτες ἐτεκτήναντο.
And some recent critics (as Rosenm.) consider the line quoted by
the Apostle as Callimachus’s. But (as Whitby observes) he was
no Cretan, but a Cyrenean; and he has only the first words of the
verse, which, Jerome says, he borrowed from Epimenides. What
followed in Epimenides we know not, and have no concern to know.
But I should suspect that it was not what Chrys. has given; for if
so, Callimachus’s plagiarism would have been shameless. It is far
more probable that he confounded the words of Epimenides and
of Callimachus. At all events, the difficulty he raises is none at all;
for the words following ἡ μαρτυρία---ἀληθής can only refer to what
St. Paul has cited, not what might follow.

352 TITUS, CHAP. I.

bellies, greedy devourers; ἀργὸς sometimes signifying swift. But
the antient and common interpretation, slow-bellies, seems the more
natural. According to this, two vices seem ascribed to them at once,
namely, gluttony and sloth; for yaor. may of itself denote gluttons
(seé Steph. Thes.), q. d. all belly. And so the Latin ventris. ‘The
term ἀργὸς was often used of the fruges consumere nati.” Indeed
these two vices go together. See Wetstein’s examples. Some take
the ἀργὸς to signify tardus, Ang]. fat-bellied and slow; as Juvenal
4,107. Montani quoque venter adest abdomine tardus. See Ir-
misch on Herodian, 1, 186.

13. δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, i. 6. since they are thus. "Eaeyxe
a. ἀποτόμως, ‘*rebuke them sharply.” A metaphor
(as Est., Heinr., and Benson think) taken from sur-
geons, who cut away the unsound flesh even to the
quick, lest the mortification should extend. Com-
pare 2 Cor. 13, 10. Rom. 11, 22. Thus the follow-
ing ὑγιαίνωσιν has still greater propriety.

Ἔν τῇ πίστει, “in the doctrine and religion, the
διδασκαλίᾳ ὑγιαίνουσα, supra, ver. 9. So Theophyl.
observes, that by this it is meant, that they are to
retain it as it was delivered to them by the Apostle,
without any admixture of Judaism or Gentilism.

14. προσέχοντες---ἀλήθειαν. He now shows in what
respect he would especially have Titus watch over
the soundness of their faith; namely, that they may
not attach themselves to Jewish fables. See 1 Tim.
1, 4. and the notes.

By Jewish fables some think the Apostle means
the Gnosticks’ Cabbalistical interpretation of the
Old Testament. But this is refuted by Whitby.
The antients, and most moderns, rightly interpret it
of traditions concerning meats, either καθαροὶ, ἅγιοι,
ὅσιοι, OF ἀκαθαρτοὶ, κοινοὶ, βεβηλοὶ, μεμιασμένοι, Which
our Lord himself, Matt. 15, 9., calls the doctrines of
men: whence may be discerned the meaning of the
ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων here; and I cannot but think
that the Apostle had in view that passage of St.
Matt. Theophyl. calls them the δευτερώσεις and πα-
ρεξηγήσεις of the Old Testament. Rosenm. under-
stands the μῦθοι of fables properly so called; as of
the battle of Gog and Magog, Behemoth, Leviathan,

TITUS, CHAP. I. 353

and these various tales respecting the Messiah, as an
earthly monarch; to which Jaspis adds spurious
books, as the life of Abraham, the book of Noah,
the testimony of the Patriarchs, and others. All
these may be included.

In the clause ἀποστρεφομένων, there is something
cutting; 4. d. *‘not only tales of mere men (and
therefore of no authority), but of men averse from
the truth.”

15. πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς.

Rosenm. paraphrases: ‘Si quis probus fuerit, omnibus cibis uti
potest, nec ob ciborum in lege Mosis vetitorum usum Deo displi-
cet; quia lex illa non amplius ad eum pertinet.” So Jaspis:
«*Sermo est non de morali, sed de rituali pueritate, sensu Judaico ;
πάντα ergo, Omnia, que pertinent ad ritus et ceremonias. Cogite-
tur de promiscuo ciborum usu, de certorum dierum discrimine
eorumque vel observatione vel neglectu et aliis ad externum cul-
tum pertinentibus rebus.”” Compare a similar sentiment in 1 ‘Tim.
4, 4 & 5., and see the notes there. The paronomasia between mo-
ral and ceremonial purity is very neat. Καθαρὸς and ἀκαθαρὸς in a
moral sense are frequent in the Classical writers.

In τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις, ἃς. the Apostle dwells only on mental
and moral purity: but he further enlarges upon it, in order to point
a well merited invective against the false teachers in question,
Heinr. explains thus: “Τὸ those Jewish impostors (who, in oppo-
sition to the καθαροὶ and πιστοὶ, i.e. true Christians, are called
μεμιασμένοι and ἀπιστοὶ) nothing is pure, nothing benefits them to
the production of purity, whatever they may say of meats pure and
common; because their whole mind and conscience is contami-
nated.” And so Wells ap. D’Oyley., and also Benson. ᾿αλλὰ pee
μίανται---συνείδησις. Theophy]. shows that they can never attain
the purity they affect ; since the pure animals in one or other way
become impure: so that, he adds, ἡ ῥυπαρὰ διανοία κακῶς περὶ
rovrwy λογιξβομένη; ἑαυτῇ συμμιαίνει ταῦτα, μὴ ὄντα φύσει τοιαῦτα.
But this is (I think) not exactly the Apostle’s meaning, who is
speaking, I repeat, of moral rather than ceremonial purity. So
Jaspis : ‘* impii quavis re semet ipsos inquinare, et sic Deo se exosos
reddant. Itaque etiam vel anxié ratione habita vetitorum ciborum,
minimé tamen Deo placere possunt, et hac ciborum abstinenti4 im-
pietatem quasi compensare nequeunt.” SoMr. Valpy: ‘A Gentile
convert, who lives up to the'faith and precepts of Christianity, is
elean and pure in the sight of God, while they who presume so
much upon their distinctions, render themselves incapable by their
obstinate infidelity and immoralities, to perform any acceptable ser-
vice to God.” See also Doddridge’s paraphrase.

See a very similar sentiment in Sirach 39, 32. Wets., too, ad-
duces severa] others from the Classical writers; as Galen, ταῖς ἀκα»

VOL. VIII. QA

B54 TITUS, CHAP. 1. II.

θάρτοις ψυχαῖς, εἰ τροφίμους᾽ προσφέρεις λόγους, ov μόνον οὐδὲν
ὠφελήσεις ἂν, ἀλλὰ καὶ βλάψεις οὐ σμικρὰ. Seneca, Ep. 98. Malus
animus omnia in malum vertit, etiam que specie optimi venerunt,
et de Benefic. 5, 12.. Quemadmodum stumachus morbo vitiatus,
et colligens bilem, quoscunque acceperit cibos mutat—ita animus
cecus, quicquid illi commiseris, id onus suum et perniciem facit.

, 16. Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν----ἀδόκιμοι, ** They profess. to
know, love, and serve the true God, and to be faith-
ful Christians.” For such is ἊΝ da of the for-
mula Θεὸν εἰδέναι ; as 2 Tim. 2, 19. (where see the
note). And so it is amit, by Benson and
Heinr. *Epyois, evil actions, as opposed to fair pre-
fences. Agvovvras, as opposed to εἰδέναι, denotes,
® do not care to know, but neglect and hate.” See
the note on 1 Tim. 5,8. The sense, then, may be
briefly expressed, with Rosenm., thus: “ destruunt
re quod ore profitentur.”

--16. βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες, ““ being really abominable,
oh of execration by God and man.” The καὶ
before ἀπειθεῖς is rendered by Heinr. quippe qui sint.
It may simply signify nempe, even. ᾿Απειθεῖς, disobedi-
ent. ‘The ἀδόκιμοι is by some rendered reprobate ;
by others (and indeed the best Commentators) inepéz,
inutiles ; γῇ adox., Hebr. 6, 8.: and Grot. thinks it
a metaphor taken from bad money, which will not
pass, and is therefore useless. Which of these inter-
pretations be the true [know not. They both merge
into each other; and it is truly observed by Grot.:
“Tales autem sunt profani omnes, etiamsi quid fa-
ciunt quod oportet, non faciunt ut oportet.”

CHAP. Il.

Ver. 1. σὺ δὲ---Οιδασκαλίᾳ. From the διδασκ. which
follows, it should seem that λαλεῖ signifies teach ;
a frequent sense of the word. It .may, however,
be used with a reference to private admonition and
instruction as well as public teaching and preaching.
On the vy. 3:3. see the note, supra, 1, 6.

%

TITUS, CHAP, Il. 355:

2—6. πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι, ὅτε.

CEcumen. here subauds δεῖ. But it should seem that the λαλεῖ
is to be repeated, with a slight accommodation of sense. ἸΤρεσβ. is
here taken by Hamm., Le Clerc, and Mackn. to denote, not aged
men, but Presbyters ; since the directions given are similar to those
at 1 Tim. 1,3. and πρεσ[βύτιδος at ver. 3. is applicable to those
women who bore offices in the Church; as appears from the epi-
thets ἱεροπρεπεῖς and καλοδιδασκάλους. But this is supported nei-
ther by the authority of the antients, nor the opinions of the mo-
derns. And the qualifications do not sufficiently correspond.
Neither is the word ever used in the New Testament in that sense.
Something more may be said of the interpretation as it regards the
women ; and here there is somewhat of antient authority. Perhaps
we may reconcile the two interpretations, by supposing that the
Apostle, though he used these general terms, yet had also in mind
those of both sexes who filled ecclesiastical offices, especially the
latter. Certainly some of the epithets countenance this.

NegaX. must here mean sober. The καταστήματι denotes not
only dress, but in a general way, deportment.* ‘Ieoomperets. This
is by most Commentators thought to regard the dress, which was to
be decent, i. e. such as became Christian women, or Deaconesses.
Heinr. takes it for εὐπρεπεῖς ; (only the ἱερο. he thinks, may be in-
tensive). But that epithet, as applied to dress and deportment, con-
veys an idea remote from the Apostle’s thoughts. Aedovdwpévas.
This and the προσέχοντας at 1 Tim. 3, 8. are nearly synonymous ;
though the present is a stronger term, illustrated by Joh. 8, 34.
and Rom. 6, 14. Καλοδιδασκάλους. it is obvious that this can only .
relate to private, not public instruction ; as indeed is evident from
the words following, which, as the antients observe, are to be closely
connected with this, serving to show what they were to teach their
children, Servants, and friends.

Σώφρ. is here used as a vox pregnans ; q.d. ‘ that they may regu-
late their morals, and act as monitresses, teaching them, &c. There
is by some thought to be an allusion to the σωφρονισταὶ, who at
Athens were chosen out of the tribes, to superintend the morals of
the ephebi, or youths. But even that word was sometimes used in
a figurative sense; as in Thucyd. 3, 15. σωφρονισταὶ ὄντος τῆς
γνώμη».

In suggesting to the elder women what they were to teach the
younger, the Apostle inculcates the domestic duties and virtues of
wives ; for further than this his injunctions do not reach. Religious
duties they would be taught by the Deaconesses, Presbyters, ἄς,
Of these domestic duties the first in order, as in importance, is that

* So; among the passages cited by Wets., Porphyr. de Abstin. 4,
6. τὸ δὲ σεμνὸν κἀκ τοῦ καταστήματος ἑωρᾶτο. ‘Simplic. on Epict. p-
278. Wore καὶ τὸ κατάστημα μὴ σεμνὸν μὲν οὕτω ὡς βαρὺ τοῖς πα-.
ροῦσι φαίνεσθαι. He also (as do Rosenm, and Heinr.) cites Plut.
1, S24. βλέμματι καὶ κινήματι καταστηματικὸς, But there perhaps.

the sense is only staid.
QaQ

356 TITUS, CHAP. II.

of loving their husbands; for, as Theophyl. justly observes, τούτου
ὄντος, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ Eerat, εὐθυνία οἴκου, Kal χρημάτων περιοῦυ sia’
ὥσπερ ἀπόντος, πάντα κἂν παρώσιν, ἀποῤῥνυήσονται. So Socrat. ap.
Stob. Serm. 443, 32. Εὐσεβεία γυναικεία 6 πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα ἔσως,
and Pericthyon ap. Stob. p. 488. ἐθελήσει τὸν ἄνδρα. The word
φίλανδρος in its use, comprehended dutiful respect, &c. (See Wet-
stein’s examples from Plato, Plutarch, and Polyznus)*, in which
sense it is said, ‘* her desire shall be to her husband.”

On σώφρ. see 1 Tim. 3, 2and 5. ‘Ayvas Heinr. explains a pecca-
tis immunes. But this is too vague. The term is of the same na-
ture with the preceding ; though a stronger one ; and denotes, as
Theophyl. observes, purity in ¢hought as well as action. See 1 Tim.
5, 22.

Οἰκούρους. This term is a very expressive one, and denotes
“‘ those who stay at home and mind their own business.” It answers
to the τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον at 1 Tim., 3,4. ‘Thus it
not only means keepers at home, but keepers or care-takers of the
home, or house.t

᾿Αγαθὰς, This is by some united with the preceding. A method,
however, unsupported by any of the numerous passages above cited.
Wolf rightly observes that it has a special signification. But that is
not (1 think) what he (in common with Casaubon, Vitringa, and
many others), supposes, namely, benignas, good tempered, as opposed
to scolding wives. No; the Apostle did not condescend to any
one so special as that; but rather means what the Latins expressed
by the bona femina (as Ennius ap. Wets.: ‘‘ ‘Tarquinii corpus bona

* To which I add Apollon. Ep. 55. γυνὴ σέμνη καὶ φιλάνδρος.
and 58. ἔχεις γυναῖκα ἔμφρονα φιλάνδρον. This is, however, not
confined to the later writers. Soin a beautiful passage of Aschy]l.
Pers. 140. Περσίδες δ᾽ ἀκροπενθεῖς ἕκαστα πόθῳ φιλάνδρι, Tor
αἰχμάεντα θοῦρον εὐνατῆρ ἀποπεμψάμενα, Λείπεται μονθόυξ.

ft So Hesych, explains φροντίξουσα τὰ τοῦ οἴκον καὶ φυλάττουσα"
οὖρος γὰρ ὁ φυλὰξ λέγεται. And it is explained by Theophyl. and
CEcumen., οἰκονομικάς, Wets. here adduces numerous Classical
examples, the most apposite of which is, Philo 2, 431, 24., γυναῖκας
κουριδίας, coppdvas, οἰκούρους, καὶ φιλάνδρους. To which I add Ar-
temid. 1, 64., οἰκουρὸς καὶ πιστὴ γυνὴ, 232, 35 ἃ 66., 1,78., and 2,
33., γυναῖκας κοσμίας καὶ οἰκοδεσποῖνας, housewives, and 2, 33., γυ-
vaika πιστικὴν καὶ οὐκοῦρον, Kal πειθομένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ. Lycophr.
1095., στεγανόμους" and infra, οἰκουρίαν, αἀοηιί5 curam, housewifery.
Soph. Trach. 542., Eurip, H. F. 45., λείπει yap με τοῖσδ᾽ ἐν δώμασιν
Τροφὸν τέκνων οἰκουρόν᾽ and 1345., and Hippol. 787., oixovpnua,
housewifery. So Eurip. Meleag. frag. 12., and Aischyl. Agam. 1616.
(of Clytamn.), ce τοῦδ᾽ ἥκοντος ἐκ μάχης νέον, Oixoupds εὐνὴν ἀνδρὸς,
&e. Except in the above passage of Lycophron, this οὐκουρία is no
where more beautifully described than in Aschyl. Ag. 590—2. Tv-
ναῖκα πιστὴν δ᾽ ἐν δόμοις εὕροι μολὼν, Olay περ οὖν ἕλειπε, δωμά-
τῶν κύγα, ᾿Εσθλὴν ἐκείνῳ, πολεμίαν τοῖς δύσφροσιν.

TITUS, CHAP. II. 357

feemina lavit et unxit"’), and our ancestors, by good-wife, huswife
manager, It is, therefi re, exegetical of the preceding.

Ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν. See Ερ!ι. 5, 22., and 1 Tim.,
2,13. “Iva μὴ 6 λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημῆται. Compare 1 Tim., 6,
1. Theodoret remarks: To yap προφάσει θεοσεβείας καταλιμπάνειν
τοὺς ἄνδρας, βλασφημίαν ἔφερε τῷ κηρύγματι.

Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν. The νεωτ, is for
véous; as Joh. 21, 18. Σωφρονεῖν, “to cultivate sobriety and
modesty.” Virtues especially ornamental in youth, and estimable
in proportion to their difficulty. To these virtues the Apostle
desires Titus to exhort the young men ; though he does not tell him
to enjoin them on the young women; since it seemed scarcely
necessary ; such being, what may be called, the virtue of their sex,
in which all others centre, and without which all are valueless.*

7. περὶ πάντα σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων.
These precepts the Apostle directs him to follow up
with his own example.

Πάντα, ‘these and all other virtues.” Τύπον,
exemplar. See Phil. 3, 17., 1 Thess. 1, '7., 1 Tim. 4,
12.,and the notes. The παρεχ. is very significant.
On this the Apostle then engrafts an admonition to
ministerial virtues, in which he should be an example
to the Presbyters. ᾿Αδιαφθορίαν depends upon παρε-
χόμιενος, the sense of which must be accommodated,
perdilogiam. It signifies uncorrupted purity, and
soundness of doctrine. Αδιαφθαρτὸς is often used by
the Classical writers; and numerous passages are
cited by Wolf and Wets., in which it signifies one
who is above all corruption in any self-interested
motives. So Heinr. says it is opposed to the kary-
λεύω τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Cor., 2, 17., and πορισμὸν
νομίϑειν τὴν εὐσεβείαν, 1 Tim., 6, 5.

Σεμνόνητα, gravity, dignity ; ἵνα μιηδὲν νεώτερον καὶ
διὰ τοὺς ἄφρονας ἔχη ἡ διδασκαλία, ἀλλὰ πάντα σέφασ-
μα καὶ ἄξια Θεοῦ, says Theophyl. The ὑγιῆ is thought
to be synonymous with the ἀδιαφθ. Only that rather
regards the person than the doctrine. The metaphor

* This reminds me of a similar delicacy in that inimitable funeral
oration of Pericles ap. Thucyd. 2, 45., εἰ δὲ με δεῖ καὶ γυναικείας re
ἀρετῆς, ὅσαι νῦν ἐν χρηείᾳ ἔσονται, μνησθῆναι, βραχείᾳ παραινέσει
ἅπαν σημαινῶ" τῆς τε γὰρ ὑπαρχούσης φύσεως μὴ χείροσι γενέσθαι
ὑμῖν μεγάλη ἡ δόξα, καὶ ἧς ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἐλάχιστον; ἀρετῆς περὶ ἢ ψύγου ἐν
τοῖς ἔρσεσι κλέος ἧ.

358 TITUS, CHAP. Il.

has been before illustrated. ᾿Ακατάγνωστον. Theo-
phyl. explains this ὀρθόδοξον, μηδὲν ἐπιλήψιμον ἔχοντα.
But as the διδασκ. regarded the doctrine, so this,
perhaps, respects the manner and method, and signifies
grave, dignified, removed both from levity and affec-
tation, and disdaining the μυθολογία, or any other
methods pursued ad captandum. ‘Then the words
show the effecé which this is calculated to have on
the adversaries, whether Jews or Gentiles. So the
ἀντικείμιενος in a similar passage of 1 ‘Tim. 5, 14.
“At ἐξ ἐναντίας, must be understood μερίδος, or
γνώμης. It is somewhat rare; but examples are
adduced by Wets., from Thucyd., Xenophon, and
Sext. Emp. Evrgary. Some render this blush, be
ashamed. Others, feel respect. Both may be united,
the latter as the consequent of the former. “Iva
ἐντρεπῇ also occurs at 2 Thess., 3, 14. ᾿Εχεῖν λέγειν----
φαῦλον, in which ἔχειν is for δύναμαι, is a kind of
phrase frequent, of which Wets. adduces many exam-
ples. By the ἔχειν λέγειν is meant, that when an ad-
versary endeavours to recollect or gather any ill
report of you, he cannot find any. Perhaps, too,
there may be an allusion to what would happen
when any of the οἱ ἐξ ἐναντίας came (as we know they
did) to the Christian assemblies, to spy out some
matter for calumny. So in 1 Cor. 14, 24. (which it
is strange the Commentators should not have thought
of) ἐαν δὲ εἰσέλθη ἀπιστὸς----κοίνεται. The two passages
are the best comment on each other. It is here
truly remarked by Theodoret : Ὅταν yap καὶ τὰ λε-
γόμιενα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ κοσμεῖται, καὶ τὰ γινόμενα συμφωνεῖ
τοῖς λεγομένοις, ἐμφράττεται καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν φιλολοιδόρων
το στόματοι.

9, 10. δούλους ---μιἢ ἀντιλέγοντας, sub. παρακαλεῖ.
With this statement of the duties of servants com-
pare other similar ones at 1 Tim., 6,1. sq. Eph. 6, 5.,
and Col. 8, 22. Ἔν πᾶσι is to be taken populariter ;
as in Col. 3,22. The ἐν πᾶσι is by some construed
with the preceding; by others, with the following.
The latter is the more regular construction.

TITUS, CHAP. 11. 359°

The Apostle then touches-on those faults to which
slaves were especially prone; Ist., impertinence, in
answering again to any reproof, either in denial or
justification, “grumbling ; muttering, &c. Grot. com-
pares the ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι of Rom. 9, 20., and says
that such are called, by Plautus, responsatores.*

10. μὴ ΤΑΝ Doddr. here alters our Ver-.
sion much for the worse. No term better represents
the sense of vord. than purloining, which, though it
designates theft of every kind, especially adverts to
that too common form of it by which servants
defraud their masters in buying or selling, or such
other frauds as are denoted it the Latin antevertere:
Ilaow. On this see 1 Tim., 2, 2., &c. ᾿Ενδεικνυμένους,
exhibentes. A Latinism. The reason suggested in ἵνα
τὴν διδασκαλίαν----ν πᾶσιν is similar to that supra, ver.
5. The ἵνα, however, may be taken in the eventual
sense. By « διδασκαλίαν, is meant the religion. Tou
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ. This I cannot but understand of
Christ. See the note infra, ver. 13. Κοσμώσιν,
‘may honour it, by showing its etficacy i in promoting
virtue, and, therefore, happiness.” Heinr. observes
that this term is used of those who, by their life,
morals, and actions, do honour to their teachers. So
Eunap., cited by Wets.: λογγίνου μὲν ἦν μαθήτης, καὶ
ἐκόσμει τὸν διδάσκαλον ἐντὸς ὀλίγου χρόνου.

* And such the same writer describes in his Menc. (cited hy
Pric.): Argutos ut par pari respondeant (give them a Rowland for
their Oliver) ; Ad mandata claudos, cecos, mutos, debiles. With
which may be compared a similar elegance of Cowper, Task 4.,
“‘ The farmer’s hedge uptorn by strength Resistless in so bad a
cause, but lame To belter deeds—he bundles up the spoil, An ass’s
burden.” Pricseus aptly adduces the dict of the Satyrist, lingua

mali pars pessima servi, And he might still more aptly have cited
AEschyl. Theb. 244., παλινστομεῖς αὖ (so I would point) Angl,
‘* What then, you mutter again, do ye?” ‘The preceding line is to
be supposed pronounced, as our English Dramatists say, aside. Of
this, however, the whole phalanx of learned Thebans (his Editors)
seem not to have been aware. Had Bp. Blomfield perceived the
aside, and remembered this passage of the Apostle, he would have
suppressed his conjecture (acute and ingenious as it is) πολυστομεῖς.
_ Upon the ἀντιλογία, considered generally, I would use the wards
of Eurip. Prot. frag. 2., δυοῖν λεγόντων, θάτέρου θυμουμένου ὃ μὴ
ἀντιτείνων τοῖς λόγοις τοῖν τελανδες

360 TITUS, CHAP. 11.

11. ἐπεφάνη---ἀνθρώποις.

The connection may (I think) be thus traced: “ (And this ho-
nouring of your religion you all, as Christians, are bound to aim
at; since of all, of whatever rank, it is required) for the grace of
God,” &c. ‘Then he shows that in that religion is contained the
obligation. to avoid the vices, and cultivate the virtues above en-
joined; and, in general, to live righteously, soberly, &c. After
which he points out the very strongest motives to avoid the one and
cultivate the other, arising from the expectation of a day of retribu-
tion ; suggesting withal an encouragement to strive after virtue, in
the atonement and expiation by Jesus; and, finally, the strong mo-
tive to perform all we are really able, from a regard to the purpose
for which this atonement was made, namely, to purify unto himself
a peculiar people, zealous of good works : since, without such a glo-
rious hope of expiation, the despair might have been so great as to
unnerve all virtuous exertion.

Such is (I conceive) the general scope of this noble portion of
Scripture, than which none more plainly breathes inspiration.

The ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σωτήριος is explained the Christian doc-
trine. Butit may better be interpreted the Gospel, which revealeth
the gracious method of salvation. The term was suggested by the
815. τοῦ σωτῆρος, δια. Just before. Ἔπεφάνη, “ have been revealed,”
This expression is properly used of the appearance above the horizon
of heavenly bodies. See Acts 27,20. Luke 2, 79. and 2 Pet. 1, 9.
But it was also used of the appearance of Deities upon the earth,
That, however, is here very precarious. Πᾶσιν, ““ all of every na-
tion, rank, age,” &c.

12. παιδεύουσα---ἐπιθυμίας. This construction of
moo. with ἵνα is never found in the Classical writers.
By παιδ., Rosenm. well observes, is meant not simply
teach, but bring men to any thing, add arguments to
instruction, and show the mode in which any thing
ought to be done.* ᾿Αρνησάμενοι, renouncing. So
Thucyd. 6, 56, 1. ᾿Αρμόδιον ἀπαρνηθεντα τὴν πείρασιν"
and Joseph. 671, 10. ἀνακρούσαμενον τὴν ἀμαρτίαν.

᾿Ασέβειαν. This consisted not only in neglect of the
proper object of worship, by idolatry ; but also by
those vices which invariably attended in its train ;
151, denying the existence of a God, or, what is prac-
tical Atheism, denying his properties and attributes,
his providence and his governance of the world, and
a state of future retribution. 2dly, acknowledging
the existence and attributes of God, yet neglecting

* So Theodoret: ὑπέδειξε δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν, ἐν εὺσε-
βεία καὶ σωφροσύνῃ βιοῦν κελεύσας.

TITUS, CHAP. II. 861

to worship him (at least aright, as in idolatry), or
setting him at nought by perjury, blasphemy, pro-
fane swearing, judging hardly, and speaking dis-
respectfully of his providence ; finally, being dis-
obedient to his will, whether manifested. in the
book of nature, or that of revelation. (See Benson
and Mackn.)

12. τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας, i.e. lusts, such as the
world, the great bulk of mankind, gratifies. Pric.
compares 1 Joh. 2, 16., which passage is, indeed, the
best commentary on this phrase. Zw@pdvws. i.e.
soberly, chastely, and prudently, with respect to
ourselves ; which imports, as Theophyl. observes, a
government of all our passions, anger, and avarice,
as well as sensuality. Δικαίως. 1. 6. justly, with re-
gard to other men. EvoeBws, piously and religiously
towards God. So Grot., who observes that these
three contain a brief summary of Christian duty.
Thus Philo speaks of the three canons, τὸ Φιλοθέον,
Kal φιλάρετον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον. And Rosenm. cites
Dionys. Hal.: εὐσεβεστέρους, δικαιοτέρους, σωφρονεσ-
τέρους, and Porphyr.: σωφρὼν, ὅσιος, δίκαιος. It is
obvious that in these genera are contained many
other virtues 7m specie. See the excellent note of
Whitby and Jortin ap D’Oyley.

12. ἐν τῷ νῦν aiww. For this, Theophyl. observes,
ἔχει τὸν ἀγῶνα, ὃ δὲ μέλλων τὰς ἀντιδόσεις, this Was
destined for the probation of our faith; the other,
for the retribution of our actions.

13. προσδεχόμενοι--- Χριστοῦ. It is observed, by
Grot., that προσδεχ. here signifies metonymice, to
look forward to that whither our hope tends, namely,
the fruition of eternal life; as Job 2, 9. προσδεχόμε-
vos τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας pov. Thus ἐλπ. is the
thing hoped for; as Gal. 5, 5. and Col. 1, 5., &c.
Μακαρίαν, i.e. which makes us happy. So our blessed
is often used. The καὶ is exegetical, and has the
sense of nempe, even.

13. καὶ ἐπιφανείαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ
σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

362 TITUS, CHAP. Ii.

There are few things more surprising in the history of sacred
interpretation than the studiousness with which some distinguished
scholars exert themselves to ascribe to these words such a meaning
‘as no person ({ think) of plain sense would ever have thought of.
The most natural and obvious interpretation is surely that of the
antients (except the Arians, &c.) and all the earlier moderns (ex-
cept the heterodox, and also Erasm. and Grot., who appeal to Hilary
and Ambros.), namely, “ the glorious appearing of our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’ This sense is satisfactorily vindicated by
the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull Def. Fid. Nic., and recently of
Matthei, and Bp. Middleton; though, strange to say, almost all
critics take the other side. Surely, if the doctrine of the article,
propounded by the learned Prelate above mentioned (and founded
on the discoveries of former scholars), have any truth (as it un-
doubtedly has some) no other version can be admitted. But, waving
that argument, this is a case in which, I conceive, great weight
ought to be ascribed to the opinion of the Greek Fathers, certainly
the best judges of the nice proprieties of their language. 1 cannot
enter into the point so fully as its importance demands, but I would
observe that the argument urged by Beza and Whitby, that ἐπιφα-
veia is no where used, in the New Testament, of God, but of Christ,
has never been answered, and is, I think, unanswerable. For it is
in vain to urge that not God, but the glory of God is spoken of;
since τῆς δόξης is there, by acommon Hebraism, put for the adjec-
tive ἐνδόξον, and belongs to ἐπιφανείαν. Andsothe E.V. This,
too, is fully supported by the authority of the Greek Fathers and
Commentators. Thus Theodoret: τῆς ἐνδόξον παρουσίας. And
Theophyl. observes that this is called his glorious advent (as Matt.
25, 31.), in opposition to his first advent in humility (in the flesh),
I would compare a very similar passage in the twin Epistle, 2 Tim.
4,9. πᾶσι τοῖς ἡγαπήκοσι τὴν ἐπιφανείαν αὐτοῦ, where see the note.

With these and other reasons for supposing it to be Christ, and
not God the Father who is here meant, we may safely call to our aid
the propriety of language as it regards the use of the article. And
it is in vain that Grot. and others object that the Apostle is inatten-
tive to the nice proprieties of the article. That may be; but we
must not suppose an impropriety unnecessarily, especially when the
context does not countenance it. Thus here, had the context been
neutral, I should have been loath to urge the principle above men-
tioned, and would have admitted the sense to be dubious. But not
so in the present case. Under these circumstances, I cannot but
wonder at the inconsistency of Doddr. and Mackn., who, though
acknowledging that the words may be rendered our great God and
Saviour, yet, because they think the point dubious, choose to render
it the great God and our Saviour. Which is deciding what they call
dubious (and deciding in a way little to be expected from orthodox
Divines) ; for by translating as in our Common Version, the point
is decided; neither is there any ambiguity left. I cannot but sus-
pect that all our Translators have been influenced more than they
were aware, by an argument, specious, indeed, and employed by the
maintainers of the new version, namely, that Jesus Christ is no

TITUS, CHAP. II. 363

where styled the great God. To which I would answer, that the
μεγάλου belonging to both Θεοῦ and σωτῆρος alters the case, and
removes that objection. The sense is plainly this: “ the glorious
appearance of that GREAT BEING, who is our Gop νὴ Saviour.”
I cannot omit to observe that the ὅς just after countenances this
version ; since had two persons been before spoken of, it would have
been harsh to have suspended on that sentence.a clause in which one
only was meant.

14. ὃς ἔδωκεν---ἔργων. The sense of λυτρώσηται is
strangely contracted by the recent Interpreters, who
render it, liberate, withdraw. (See Rosenm.) Con-
sidering the idea of salvation implied in the σωτῆρος
just before, and that ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲο ἡμῶν imme-
diately precedes, it is plain that something more is
intended than withdrawing men from sin, by pure
doctrine and a holy example, sealed by death (which
was partly true of Socrates), even the atonement and
expiation offered up for all repented and forsaken
sin, which, by paying the λύτρον, not only delivers us
from the punishment of sin, but, from its power,
supplies us with the strongest motives to abstain
from all future iniquity. The λυτρωσ. is therefore a
vox pregnans. (See Schleus. Lex.) The words fol-
lowing are exegetical of the latter part of this di-
logia; and the best mode of considering the sentence
is to regard it as consisting of two clauses blended
into one, i.e. “ that he might purify us to his ser-
vice, and (thus) make us a people peculiarly his own,
and beloved (as being), zealous of good works.”
Such is, I conceive, the true interpretation and
sense, and it is supported by the most eminent Com-
mentators.

Περιούσιον, in this Hellenistical use (which is sup-
posed to be derived from the Sept.), signifies (as
Chrys. says) what is ἐξαιρετὸν, any thing especially
chosen out from other things, and therefore eximium
and pretiosum, &c. Such appears the most rational
account of the signification, on which the modern
Commentators bestow much labour, but with little

success. ‘There is, doubtless, an allusion to the
election of the Jews, who were the λαὸς περιουσίας ;

364 TITUS, CHAP. II.

4. ἃ. ** now Christians are κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the λαὸς πε-
ριουσίας, even the Gentiles who receive the faith.”
See Eph. 2, 10. & 3, 6—9. 1 Pet. 2, 9 & 10.

14. ϑηλώτην καλῶν ἔργων, ‘ zealously studious of
good works.” <A frequent sense of ϑηλ. both in the
Scriptural and Classical writers. The expression is,
perhaps, used in contradistinction to the Jews, who
were ϑηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου. Acts 21, 20.

15. ταῦτα λάλει----περιφρονείτω. Aare, teach; as
ver. 1., where see the note. [ἔλεγχε Rosenm. ren-
ders injunge. But this is an error arising from a
want of attention to the brevity of the sentence, and ~
a fault in punctuation of the recent editions, in which
the comma after παρακάλει is improperly removed.
The sense is; ** The above doctrines and duties do
thou teach, and exhort to the practice thereof; and
(any who gainsay or neglect them) rebuke with all
authority.” So Theophyl.: λαλεῖ πρῶτον καὶ παρα-
κάλει, εἶτα ἔλεγχε. The per ἐπιταγῆς Theophyl.
explains μετ᾽ ἀποτομίας, per αὐθεντίας, i.e. ‘in the
exercise of the authority vested in thee and God’s
ministers for that very purpose,” and of which Paul
had given him the example as well as the precept.

15. μηδεὶς cov mepidpoveirw. He does not say, as
to Timothy, despise thy youth ; for Titus wasa much
older man; but, as appears from the ézir., ‘ despise
thee for the want of due authority and firmness,”
i.e. give no one cause to despise. See the note on
1 Tim. 4,12. Rosenm. observes that περιῷρον. is a
rare word, and hence some MSS. (by gloss) read
καταῷρον. He, however, adduces one from Eunap.
(cited by Wets.): δι᾿ ἡλικίαν περιφρονηθεὶς. ‘To which
I add Thucyd. 1, 25. Lucian 3, 496 & 497. Aris-
toph. Nub. 226 & 741. It is well remarked by
Theophyl., that authority and rebuke must be well
timed, otherwise it will be despised.

TITUS, CHAP. 11. 365

CHAP. III.

VeERsE 1. ὑπομίμνησκε---εἶναι. Compare 2 Tim.
2,14. ὕπομιμ., admonish, &c. Rosenm. renders,
remind them. ‘That they needed this admonition
appears from many passages of the Classical writers
cited by Wets. ‘The Jews, too, who were very nu-
merous, were always ripe for sedition.

With respect to the words πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον---εἶναι,
the Commentators, both antient and modern, are not
agreed whether to refer them to the preceding or to
the following. According to the former method,
they will define the obedience, and limit it to all
things lawful. And this is supported by most mo-
derns. See Chrys. and Pric. According to the
latter, they will suggest how obedience may arise,
namely, from discharging the other duties. (See
Calvin, Rosenm., and Kuin.) The former mode of
interpretation, however, is most agreeable to the
context and to the style of the Apostle.

As to the words following, μηδένα βλασφημεῖν----
ἀνθρώπους, they need no explanation; and we have
only to avoid the undue limitation of them by some
Commentators (who confine the sense to mildness
towards those dissenting in opinion, or peaceful sub-
jection to government), and make the admonition
co-extensive with the sphere of human duty; which
was very suitable to those κακὰ θηρία.

8. ἦμεν γὰρ---ἀλλήλους, This suggests the reason
for the lenity and mildness in question towards the
brutal and bad; “ For we were what they are.’
(Compare Gal. 4, 3. Eph. 2,3 & 11. 1 Cor. 6, 11.)
A popular argument, many examples of which are
adduced by Priceus; as from Pliny, to a harsh
father: ‘ Cogita illum puerum esse, et te fuisse.??
Though much more dignified is that of Seneca, cited
by Grot.: “ Faciet nos moderatiores respectus nos-
tri, si consulerimus nos.” It is, however, more to
the purpose to compare 1 Cor. 10, 12., as does Theo-

800 TITUS, CHAP. 111.

doret, who also aptly applies the saying of the peni-
tent thief to his fellow, “for we are in the same
condemnation.”
τς Grot. and Whitby observe that the ἡμεῖς is used
for κοίνωσιν. Yet see Doddr. |

On the words following it is not necessary to re-
fine, or to suppose any regular digest of Gentile vices.
‘The ἀνόητοι and πλανώμενοι both relate to errors in
religion, by an ignorance of the true God, and the
worship of idols. ᾿Απειθεῖς, 1. 6. disobedient even to
those duties which the law of nature teaches, and
therefore inexcusable. See Rom. 1., which is also
the best commentary on the present passage. Adov-
λεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις. For the Cre-
tans were, as Plato says, infamous for impurity οὗ
every kind. On the metaphor in dova. see the co-
pious Classical illustrations of Wets. Kakxia is ex-
plained, by Heinr. and others, of vice in general.
But I prefer, with the antients and most moderns, to
understand it of malice, μνησικακία, to use the ex-
pression of Theophyl. Διάγω literally signifies to
pass one's life: as in a passage of Plut. cited by
Wets.: diay. ἐν οἴνῳ. The next words στυγητοί, μι-
σοῦντες ἀλλ᾽. have much force and beauty: but are
strangely misunderstood by Mackn., who renders,
“ hateful to the Gentiles.” But the Apostle is
speaking of Jews and Gentiles. Whitby renders,
_ ™ hateful to one another.” It may rather be inter-

preted, with Heinr., “ hateful to God and good
men.” So Philo, cited by Wets.: στυγητὸν καὶ θεο-
μίσητον πρᾶγμα. He also compares Plato, μισοῦντες,
μισοῦνται, Which is imitated by Max. Tyr. Diss. 36.
I add Soph. Aj. 1135. μισοῦντ᾽ ἐμίσει. Aristid. 1,
356. μισοῦντες καὶ μισουμιένοι διῆγον. Pausan, D. 6, 8.
Appian 11, 29, 66. οὔτε ἐστέργετο our ἔστεργε. With
the μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους Pric. aptly compares Tacit.
Ann. 14. Invisi mutuis odiis.

4, ὅτε de—@eod. With the sentiment, which is
very frequent, Heinr. compares Gal. 4, 3. seqq.
Eph. 2, 3. 11, 12. and 1.Cor. 6, 11., &e.. He ob»

TITUS, CHAP. III. 867

serves that χρηστ. and φιλανθρωπία, though properly
differing as genus and species, are yet synonymous
with χάρις Θεοῦ at 2, 11. Thus they are conjoined
in Philo 1002. (cited by Loesner) χρηστότητα yap
καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν ἐλπίσαντες ἐνιδούσθαι τῇ Γαίου Wyn.
Rosenm. here supplies ὅς πάντας ἀνθρώπους σωθῆναι
θέλει.

5. οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων---ἁγίου. Now follows the apodosis :
“ we are admitted into the Christian religion.” ‘This
extends to ver. 8., and in it are enumerated the
especial benefits of which he is made partaker who
is admitted to the Christian religion, namely, bap-
tism, redemption, the aid of the Holy Spirit.” (Hein.)

At τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ must be understood ὄντων.
And ἐν. d«. is a phrase for the cognate adjective
δικαία. Κατὰ, according to, out of, &c., i.e. Mmerci-
fully, like the διὰ τῆς χαρίτος, Gal. 15., or the Θεοῦ τὸ
δώρον, Eph. 2,9. So Grot., who, in common with
the best Commentators, interprets ἔσωσεν “ put into
a state of salvation ;” implying admission to the
Christian religion and all its benefits, both of know-
ledge and happiness, both here and hereafter. See
Acts 2, 47. and 1 Tim. 2, 4. and the note on
Matt. 2, 21.

5. διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας.

It is well known what controversies have been raised upon the
sense of this expression, into which I shall not enter, since they are
now, in agreat measure, settled : all the most enlightened Interpre-
ters have been long agreed that the opinion invariably supported by
early Fathers is the true one, namely, that baplismal regeneration is
here meant; baptism (to use the words of our 27th Article) being a
sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as an instrument, they
that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; and the
promises of the forgiveness of sins, and of our aduption to be the
sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed.

I cannot enter at large into the subject; but I would observe,
that upon a point where those, both of antient and modern times,
who were the likeliest to come at the truth, have agreed upon any in-
terpretation, there is the greatest reason to believeit true. Such, I
think, is the case here: and 1 would refer to a remarkable passage
of Chrys. 1, 328., which fully shows the opinion of that eminent
Father. At the same time, I cannot think that the words καὶ ἀνα-
καιγώσεως Πνεύματος ἁγίου are to be explained (or rather explained
away), as they are done by some. (See Benson, who applies this

|

368 TITUS, CHAP. III.

solely to Paul.) The true force of the ἀνακαιν. ry. ay. seems to be
best explained by Dr. Gloucester Ridley ap. D'Oyley ; and 1 will only
add, that the disputes upon baptismal and meral regeneration have
too often degenerated into logomachias ; whereas, if the disputants
would take care to define the terms they employ, and have the pa-
tience to understand each other, they would be found to differ far
less than they seem to do. This rare word (for so it is) wadvyy. has,
I have observed, sometimes in the antient writers, the signification
of moral reformation. So Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 3, 23. fin. διδοὺς μέγα
παράδειγμα μετανοίας ἀληθινῆς, καὶ μέγα γνώρισμα παλιγγενεσίας.
With respect to the baptism of John, on which so much has been
said, I have noted a remarkable passage in Joseph. Ant. 15, 6, 2.,
from which it appears that that was not understood to convey re-
generation: οὕτω καὶ τὴν βάπτισιν ἀποδεκτὴν αὐτῷ φανεῖσθαι, μὴ
ἐπὶ τίνων ἁμαρτάδων παραιτήσει χρωμένων (scil. αὐτῶν), ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽
ἀγνεῖα τοῦ σώματος, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προκεκαθαρ-
μένη. ‘ ἘΠ ἐν -

6. οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως. According to
the interpretation above adopted this verse requires
little explanation. ᾿Εκχέω, and similar words in all
languages, are used in the sense abundantly impart
and confer. Διὰ 1. Χ, 1. 6. not merely by his reli-
gion (as Rosenm. explains), but by his intercession
and advocacy, as our great High Priest.

7. ἵνα δικαιωθέντες--- αἰωνίου. Notwithstanding what
Rosenm. says, δικαιωθ. must be understood of remis-
sion of sins, and not be taken in the vague and pre-
carious sense he assigns, namely, “ tales facti, quales
esse debemus.”? The ἵνα ds. depends upon ἔσωσε;
and the usual signification of the term (on which I
have often treated on Rom. and Gal.) here yields a
satisfactory sense. The phrase κατ᾽ ἐλπίδα ϑωῆς aiw-
νίου is, as Heinr. says, for ἐλπίδος ϑωῆς. Grot.,
Knatchb., and Rosenm. would construe ϑωῆς αἰωνίου
with κληρονόμοοι, and take κατ᾽ éarida in the sense
prout speramus. But this is too harsh.

Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. shows that the Jews often
used the phrase ‘“‘ inheritance of life in a future
world.”

8. micros 6 λόγος. A frequent formula introduc-
tory of some important truth. Διαβεβ. has the de-

onent sense affirm; as in 1 ‘Tim. 1,7. where see the
Ε
. \ > 4
note. Heinr. would subaud τοὺς ἀκουόντας ce. The

TITUS, CHAP. III. 369

construction is: ἵνα οἱ πεπιστευκότες τῷ Θεῷ φροντίϑωσι
προΐστασθαι καλῶν ἔργων, where οἱ πεπιστ. is ἃ peri-
phrasis for οἱ πιστοὶ, Christians. By καλῶν ἔργων
some, as Grot. and Le Clerc would understand, their
honest calling and trades. And this were indeed a
precept not unworthy of the Apostle, and of which
he furnished the example; yet, as being engrafted
on a passage in which the benefits of redemption are
enlarged on, it seems not sufficiently elevated. Pre-
ferable is the interpretation of the antient Commen-
tators and some moderns, works of benevolence.
But even that seems too limited a sense. The com-
mon interpretation, by which it is extended to good
works of every kind, is far more natural, and worthy
of the Apostle; and is supported by what follows;
for in the pursuit of curious speculations, and scho-
lastic subtilties, unconnected with the main articles
of our faith, and the common rules of human duty,
practice is too often neglected.

8. προΐστασθαι with a genitive, signifies to sedu-
lously exercise, of which sense many examples are
adduced by the Philologists. So that the two terms
taken together, ¢govr. and προίστ., convey a strong
sense. Of the τὰ καλὰ and ὠφέλιμα also many exam-
ples are adduced. I suspect, indeed, that this was a
not uncommon phrase.

9, μωρὰς---περιΐϊστασο. See note on 2 Tim. 2, 16
and 25., and see also 1 Tim.1, 4. The Apostle here
distinctly explains his meaning by μάχας νομικὰς, i. 6.
disputes on curious questions connected with the in-
terpretation of the Mosaic Law. ᾿Ανωφελεῖς, useless,
nay (per litoten) pernicious.

10. αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ pilav καὶ δευτέραν νουθε-
σίαν παραιτοῦ. By the association of ideas, the men-
tion of frivolous questions, and curious subtilties, led
to that of the heresies and schisms which they tend
to generate. On this word aizer., as well as σχίσμα,
there has been much, though perhaps needless, dis-
cussion. It may be sufficient to observe, that,
though a vox media, yet in the ecclesiastical sense,

VOL. VIII. 2B

570 TITUS, CHAP. III.

aiper. signifies one who takes up any doctrine or doc-
trines in opposition to the fundamental truths of the
Christian religion; and that a schism is a separation
from the rest of Christians, on account of these
αἱρέσεις. It would be easy to say much more on the
subject; but this is not the place to treat on it. It
must be borne in mind, that the Apostle here
especially adverts to Judaizers.

10. μιαν καὶ δευτέραν, first or second; cardinal for
: : ῇ
ordinal, on which I have before treated. Tapairou,
ἐς decline all familiar intercourse with.”
11. εἰδως ὅτι---αὐτοκατάκριτος.

The sense of these words is not a little obscure, and consequently
variously explained. I can neither enter into those diversities, nor
into the tedious and interminable controversy on this and the fol-
lowing verse. The words (I think) are meant to suggest a reason
why all intercourse with such a person is to be avoided; and the
difficulty hinges upon αὐτοκατάκριτος, which some eminent Com-
mentators think may mean “ one who furnishes matter of self-con-
demnation against himself.” But this seems very harsh, and little
agreeable to what preceded. The antient interpretations, from
their simplicity, deserve more attention. Chrys., Theophyl., and
(Ecumen. explain it ἀναπυλόγητος, or condemned by himself, and
his own conscience. Theodcret, most acutely and, 1 think, truly,
remarks, that the import of the whole verse is ἀνονήτος γὰρ ἔστι ὁ
πόνος. If, therefore, these interpretations be conjoined, we may (I
think) approximate to the truth; 4. ἃ. ‘‘ Such an one avoid ; for
he is utterly perverted, and therefore no good can be expected: he
sins self-condemned, and is so inexcusable that you may justly break
off intercourse ; and by his being already self-condemned, you need
not keep up intercourse with the intent of convincing him of his
error; for of that his conscience must and does admonish him.” In
all this I see nothing to stumble at, if the saving be taken popula-
riter, and not too much pressed upon. See the able note of Whitby
and Dry. Forster’s Letter to Stebbing. To enter further into the
subject would be here out of place. Suffice it to say, that it has not
been enough borne in mind, that the heretics of those times, by
maintaining opinions at variance with those of the inspired Apos-
tle, who even worked miracles in confirmation of his Divine mission,
were indeed inexcusable, and must have been self-condemned. But
that will not prove that all heretics of every age are to be pro-
nounced self-condemned ; and therefore no Minister ought to pre-
sume to take the high ground which Titus was authorized to do;
but, under the altered circumstances of the case, to show indul-
gence to human infirmity, whenever the error cannot be traced to

a conceited or factious spirit, which appears to be the very essence of
the sin of heresy.

TITUS, CHAP III. 371

12—15. This portion is wholly occupied with
practical matter, and is too familiar to need much
explanation. Of Artemas we know nothing. Some
think he was one of the Apostle’s scribes. On Ni-
copolis see the Geographical writers, or Schleus.
Lex. By τὸν νόμιμον is meant one who had been an
interpreter of the Jewish Law, or one who was a
Jurisconsult; for, as Rosenm. observes, even the
Greeks were admitted tothe Roman bar. Zrevdaiws
πρόπεμνψον. On the force of this word I have before
treated. Benson thinks that St. Paul knew Zenas
and Apollos were to pass through, or touch at Crete;
and therefore gave this direction. (See more in his
note.) On Apollos see the Acts 18, 24. and else-
where. Mavéavérwoay δὲ καὶ of ἡμέτεροι. The δὲ καὶ
stands for autem.

The Apostle then takes occasion again to enforce
the direction supra ver. 8, which is the best com-
mentary on the present. See the note there. The
καλών ἔργων must here, from the context, be limited
to works of benevolence, hospitality, &c. ‘The words
εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας are explained by the ὠφέλιμα τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις of the above mentioned verse. In the ἵνα
μὴ ὦσιν ἔκαρποι there is a very common metaphor.
See Matt. 13, 22. and Mark 4, 19. So it is elsewhere
said, ‘* Faith without works is dead (and fruitless).”’
See also 2 Pet. 1, 8.

15. τοὺς dirouvras ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει. Here ἐν has the
sense of the Hebr.., ‘* by and through, because of
the common faith.”

372
18h
763

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

VERSE 1. δέσμιος Χριστοῦ ᾽Ἴ., a prisoner for the
sake of, in the cause of Jesus Christ and his doc-
trine. See 2 Tim. 1, 8. Συνεργῷ, i. 6. literally,
“helper in the business of religion,” whether as
being a Deacon (which some conjecture), or be-
cause, as we find from ver. 2., a congregation assem-
bled at his house, or on both these accounts. And
though the term συνεργὸς was often applied (as
Benson shows) to those who were not ministers, but
only in a general way furthered the cause of the
Gospel; yet he was probably a Deacon.

2, ᾿Απφίᾳ. A Roman name. ‘This person was (as
the antients inform us) wife of Philemon; and Ar-
chippus was his son. Benson, however, thinks he
was not ; though perhaps he might live in his house,
and officiate generally as a minister in the family, in
their daily Christian worship. Rosenm. thinks it
appears from Col. 4, 17. that he was a minister ; but
whether at Colosse or Laodicea (with whose teachers
he is numbered in the Const. Apost. L.'7, 46.) is
doubtful. He might be a minister of both, at differ-
ent times, and probably Laodicea lJast. All these
matters, however, are as uncertain as they are unim-
portant.

2. τῷ συστρατιώτῃ. ‘This seems to answer to the
cuvepyw; and his being named comrade seems to
show that he was a fellow-minister ; though the term

PHILEMON. 378

would be applicable to a private Christian ; since all
are bound to fight the good fight of faith. Rosenm.
observes, that in Herodian, the Emperor Marcus
calls his son Commodus συστρατιωτὴς, colleague.
But as they were both soldiers, it might mean com-
rade; and by that name generals often familiarly ad-
dressed those under their command.

2. καὶ τῇ Kar’ οἶκον (scil. οὔση) σου ἐκκλησίᾳ, “ the
congregation which assembles at thy house,” i. 6.
Philemon’s. It has been doubted whether this means
all the Christians at Colosse, or his own family. It
should seem, neither. Benson has given good rea-
sons for supposing that we are not to understand it
of the whole Church at Colosse assembled at Phile-
mon’s house, but only of a part ; and I have on the
Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians shown that
at this early period, before the members of this
*“new sect every where spoken against,’ were
allowed to build churches, they assembled in conven-
ticula, ittle parties, at the houses of some of the
most Z s and influential persons, and those who
had convient room for that purpose. Though it
is probable, considering the mode of building in the
East, that they would often assemble in the open
court, around which the buildings of a house are
erected. Heinr. compares the case of Christians of
the present day assembling at the houses of foreign
ambassadors.

3. yapis—Xpicrod. This has been before ex-
plained. .

4—7. The Apostle here, with great earnestness,
comes nearer to the point, and thanking God that
Philemon had been kind already, and done as much
in other instances as he was going to ask him, urges
him by his past example, to act like himself: a most
insinuating and skilful introduction to his request.
(Benson.)

On εὐχαριστῶ ---μου compare 2 Tim. 1, 3. and the
note. ‘The trajectio is obvious. Heinr. observes,
that ἢ ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν K.I. is to be referred to τὴν πίσ-

374 PHILEMON.

τιν, the nearer antecedent ; and (ἣν ἔχεις) εἰς πάντας
τοὺς ἁγίους, to ἁγάπην, the more remote, per Chias-.
mum et Synchysin. See Matt. 20, 21. and the Acts
20, 21. ** These things (says Benson) make the per-
fect Christian.”

6. ὅπως ἡ Koivwvia— [ησοῦν. Heinr. thinks that the
ὅπως is eventual, “ whence it follows.” But I prefer,
with Theophyl. and the earlier moderns, to subaud
mpocevyop.evos from the preceding προσευχῶν. The
use of ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως is somewhat harsh.
Heinr. takes it for κοινωνικὸς at 1 Tim. 6, 18., as in-
volving a notion both of mildness, and liberality.
And so Beza, Hamm., Whitby, Wells, and also some
antients. But most antients and the most eminent
moderns are agreed that it stands for ἡ πίστις κοινω-
vies, and that for an adjective, 1. 6. (as Theophyl.
explains) ἣν κοινὴν ἔχεις ἡμῖν, “ which you have in
common with us.” At all events there seems no au-
thority for, or propriety in our Version communica-

tion; though it is adopted and defended ackn.
The above interpretation is supported ude 3.
γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας, an rea an

κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν" “Kvepyys γένηται, ‘‘ should be effec-
tive.” (So Theophyl.: ἔμπρακτος, καὶ οἷον Sara), 1. 6.
effective, especially in the way suggested at Gal. 5,
6. OF ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη, where see the note. The
ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. Rosenm. takes for σὺν ἐπιγν. But I
prefer the more usual sense by. So Theophyl.: ἐν
τῷ ἐπιγινώσκειν σε πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν. Heinr. explains:
ἵνα ἐπιγνωσθῆῇ. Finally, εἰς Χριστὸν is put for ἐν
Χριστῷ, or for the honour, to the honour of Christ.
But upon the whole, from the laxity of the terms, it
is difficult to exactly determine the sense of the verse.
The whole is rendered by Wets. thus: ‘* Ut fides,
que tibi nobiscum communis est, juncta scientiz
omnis boni, quod alter alteri ex doctrina Christi
preestare tenetur, quodque Christus tanquam 5181
preestitum imputabit, efficax fieret.”
7. χάριν γὰρ---διὰ σοῦ. It is not agreed among the
Critics whether χάριν, or χαρὰν, be the true reading.

PHILEMON. 3875

The former is found in many antient MSS., Ver-
sions, Fathers, and Commentators, and is supported
by Erasm., Grot., Bengel, Griesb. ‘The latter is de-
fended by Wets., Matt., and Alter. Benson says, ‘ it
is all one; since the Greek Commentators and
Scholiasts explain χάριν by χαρὰν." But that is the
strongest reason for supposing χαρὰν a mere gloss.
The sense is the same. Παράκλησιν, solace, consola-
tion. ‘Theophyl. explains, παρηγορίαν. By τῇ ἀγάπη
is meant that benevolent spirit which so frequently
exerted itself in works of beneficence ; which is the
sense of ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα---σου; these words being
exegetical of the preceding. ‘The τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν
ἁγίων are variously explained; by some, as Est., Ca-
saub., and Menoch., of the persons themselves, with
a notion of misery cadling for pity. Theophyl. inter-
prets: ὁλοψύχως ἀποδέχονται τὴν φιλανθρωπίαν σου, ὡς
ἀφθόνως καὶ θεραπευτικώς εἰς αὐτοὺς γινομένην. Tar more
natural is the interpretation of the most eminent mo-
derns, namely, minds, hearts. And this is supported
by Theophy]l., who explains καρδίας. See Grot.,
Beza, and Scultet. As this sense of σπλάγχνα is
somewhat rare, I shall subjoin two or three exam-
ples which have occurred to me. Dionys. Hal. 1,
518,16. ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ἐντετήκυιοι, animo insidens.
Lycophr. Cass. 465. δυσμενεστάτου ξένων Eruve δώρῳ
σπλάγχνον, animum, ‘ touched his heart.”’ Aéschyl.
Ag. 966. σπλάγχνα δ᾽ οὔτι ματαίϑει IIgis ἐνδίκοις φρεσὶν
τελεσφόροις Δίναις κυκλούμενον κέαρ.

8. He now comes to what he has to request of
Philemon in favour of Onesimus. ‘This extends to
ver. 21. <A part of the Epistle the most important
and interesting, in which is strongly pourtrayed the
mild and forgiving disposition of the Apostle.
(Heinr.)

8. διὸ, “ This being the case,” i.e. since you have
evinced so benevolent and liberal a spirit to Chris-
tians. So Theophyl. Παῤῥησία properly denotes, 1.
liberty of speaking any thing one pleases; 2. liberty
of action; as here. Schleus. adduces as examples

376 PHILEMON.

Dio, p. 41. and Zosim. p. 255. This may be reckoned
among the euphemisms of the Apostle, and is nof, as
Heinr. says, jocosé dictum. To ἀνῆκον, “ what is fit,
proper, becoming in you as a Christian.”

9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλώ, “41 rather
(chuse to) exhort you, for love’s sake,” i. e. by argu-
ments drawn from love (both towards me, and all
Christians). . For it seems best to take the ἀγάπην
with this extent of signification. Τοιοῦτος ὧν ὡς Παῦ-
aos. ‘The force of this periphrasis is thus expressed
by Grot.: “Cum talis sim, qualem me esse nosti,
nempe Paulus senex,” &c. More elegantly and pro-
perly by Wets. thus: “ Cum talis sim, ut tibi impe-
rare possim: magis tamen hortor; tanquam senex,
inquam, imo etiam vinctus, hortor et obsecro te,
certus. preces meas apud te non fore irritas.”. And
he cites Andocid. in Alcibiad. ὅ δὲ πάντων δεινότατόν
ἐστι, τοιοῦτος Wy, ὡς εὔνους TH δήμῳ τοὺς λόγους ποιεῖται.
Heinr. observes, that there are three arguments on
which he grounds his request: 1. as being an Apos-
tle to whom Philemon was indebted; 2. as being an
old man (and to such we are loath to refuse a re-
quest); 3. as being a prisoner in the cause of the Gos-
pel, i.e. for the Gospel’s sake. See Benson’s copious
illustrations. He, in common with some others,
takes πρεσβύτης in the sense ambassador. But the
other interpretation, which is supported by the
united authority of both antients and moderns, is
greatly preferable.

10. παρακαλώ---δεσμοῖς pov. Heinr. conjectures
παρακ. de. But this would be offensive so soon after
another δὲ : and the propriety of the sentence will
sufficiently appear by considering that the παρακαλῶ
is resumptive ; and ce is here expressed, because it
was omitted before; being left to be supplied from
σοι. Finally, the words rosmdros—Xgiorov are paren-
thentical, and ought to be so expressed in punc-
tuation.

The metaphor at ἐγέννησα is common both in the
Scriptural and Rabbinical writings, by which dis-

PHILEMON. 377

ciples are said to be begotten again by their masters.
See 1 Cor. 4, 15. and 2 Tim. 1, 2. Ὃν after τέκνον,
is used by the πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον.

11. τὸν ποτέ---εὔχρηστον. A most skilful and re-
fined turn, not easy to be paralleled. See Benson,
who has ably pointed out the exquisite contrivance
and judgment shown in this introduction to the re-
quest to be made. Doddr., with his usual taste,
observes on the fine effect produced by reserving
the name ᾿Ονήσιμον to come last in the sentence.
The etymology of the name doubtless (as Doddr.
remarks) suggested to the Apostle the circumstances
of the ἄχρηστον and εὔχρηστον.

The critics are agreed that ἄχρηστον must be taken,
per litoten, in the sense injurious. For they infer
from ver. 18., that Onesimus had not only deserted his
master, but robbed him. Yet it is not necessary to
so interpret the ἄχρ. ; and the εἰ δὲ---ὀφειλεῖ at ver.
18. will not prove that he was guilty of theft pro-
perly so called: for ¢d. is never so used.

The σοι καὶ ἐμοὶ suggests, that as he had been use-
ful to Paul, and trust-worthy, so now he would be
so to Philemon. Ὃν ἀνέπεμψα, and (as such, being
so) Ihave sent him back.” For that is all that is
meant by the ἀνὰ, which I am surprised Heinr.
should take for εἰς τὸ ἄνω, to Asia. I remember
indeed that the word has often that sense in Thucyd.,
Xenophon, &c.; but here it would be harsh.

12. σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν---προσλαβοῦ. By the τὰ σπλάγχνα,
Commentators are agreed, must be meant mine own
son, as it were myself. So Arrian, 1, 46. τὰ σπλάγχνα
τὸν maida σημαίνουσιν. Many more examples may be
seen in Wets., to which Iadd Soph. Antig. 1053.
ἐν οἷσι τῶν σών αὐτὸς ἐκ σπλάγχνων ἕνα Νέκυν νεκρών
ἀμοιβὸν ἀντιδοὺς ἔσει. Rosemn. compares Esth. 7, 8.
Προσλάβου, i.e. “take him (again) to thy family,
protection, and confidence; receive him back with
kindness ;” as Acts 28, 2.

13. ὃν ἐγὼ---εὐαγγελίου. Benson thinks this is a
tacit answer to the objection, If Onesimus be so

378 PHILEMON.

dear and serviceable, why have you sent him back?
Or rather the connection may be thus traced: “ (He
will deserve your protection by his faithful service,
for such he is prepared now to render) insomuch
that I could have wished to have kept him to my-
self.” The ἐβουλ. is for ἐβουλ. adv; as often. See
the note on Matt. 26, 39.

13. ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ διακονῇ μοι. Heinr. interprets this:
“that he might be a servant to me instead of being
one to you,” i.e. render me the service he owes you.
But ὑπὲρ σοῦ cannot have that sense, which, more-
over, were tooformal a one. Nor, probably, did the
Apostle require a servant to wait upon him. ‘The
antients, and the most eminent moderns, rightly (I
think) understand the dix. of those kind offices
which Onesimus himself was bound, by duty and
affection, to render to his spiritual father; nay,
which were due from add Christians, especially Gen-
tile ones, in whose cause he was suffering persecution,
for that is suggested by the ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς.

14. χωρὶς δὲ---ποιῆσαι, “ But without thy know-
ledge and consent I would do no such thing, not
even though the service would be in the Gospel’s
cause. ae wou Id compare Herodian, 5, 1, 15. ἐμοὶ δὲ
σκοπὸς, “μηδέντι πράττειν. ἄνευ τῆς ὑμετέρας γνώμης.

14. ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνὰγκην---ἑκούσιον, ** That the be-
nefit (ifyou chuse to give him up to me, or, as Benson
explains, of pardoning and receiving him into favour)
may not be, as it were, compulsory, but voluntary.
To ἀγαθόν, the benefit. An example of this sense
(somewhat rare in the Classical writers) is adduced
by Wets. from Arist. Others may be seen in Georg.
Vindic. N. T. p. 23. The κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην is opposed
to the κατὰ ἑκούσιον of the former clause. Schleus.
adduces an example from Polyb. 2, 39. οὐχ ἑκουσίως,
ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην. It frequentiy occurs in Thucyd.
The antithetical κατὰ ἑκούσιον, which must,be taken
as an adverbial phrase, occurs (I think) no where in
the Classical writers; though it is found in the Sept.
at Num. 15, 3. to express the Hebr. 72753, and also

PHILEMON. 879

at Levit. 7, 16. 23, 18 (cited by Schleus.).. The
Apostle would more correctly have written ἑκούσιον,
which is explained by Hesych. θελούσῃ διανοίᾳ, or
ἑκουσίως ; as in the above passage of Polyb. But,
with his usual fondness for antithesis, he employs
κατὰ, to correspond to the κατὰ in κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην. On
the sentiment see Benson.

15. τάχα γὰρ---ἀπέχης. The γὰρ refers to some
clause omitted (which Heinr. expresses thus: “ Nil
mali nobis accidit, unde non oriatur aliquod com-
modum.’’) ‘* Thus, for example, he was separated
from you for atime, that he might remain with you
for ever.’ Commentators, antient and modern, re-
mark.on the euphemism in ἐχωρίσθη. Heinr. thinks
that the διὸ τοῦτο and ἵνα may only mean (populariter)
“της forte illud efficietur.” But this criticism were
better adapted to a passage of some Classical writer
than of a Christian Apostle addressing a faithful fellow
Christian. The antients, and most moderns, have
rightly remarked, that the words suggest the pro-
bability (for such τάχα implies) that this separa-
tion, or flight of Onesimus, happened κατὰ θείαν
οἰκονομίαν, by Divine Providence ; and this is ably
illustrated by Benson. There was (he observed) no
human intention on the part of Onesimus or Paul,
or Philemon, to accomplish an event which had led
to much good; therefore Providence might pro-
bably be supposed to have brought it about for the
good of Onesimus, and eventually of Philemon.
Compare Gen. 45, 5. ἃ 50, 20. This could not
justify Onesimus’s running away (Rom. 8, 8.), but
hence is magnified the gracious mercy of God, who
had brought good out of evil.”

15. ἵνα αἰώνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχης. This clause has been
ill understood, by the not attending to that dense
brevity of expression, by which it stands for two
sentenges, and should be expressed thus: ‘‘ That thou
mightest receive him back from me reformed, and
thus to remain with thee for ever, or perpetually ;”
which is an indirect way of engaging that he shall
not again run away.

380 PHILEMON.

16. οὐκέτι ws δοῦλον, &c., ““ no longer as a slave
(only) but more, even a brother.” ‘There is great
address and delicacy in the added words ayarnriv—
Κυρίω.

17. εἰ οὖν ἐμὲ ἔχεις --ἐμέ. The best Commenta-
tors are agreed that κοινωνὸς here (like the Hebr. ἼΣΙΤ
in Prov. 28, 24. and Is. 1, 23.) signifies a friend ;
q. d. “1 Lam worthy of participating in your con-
fidence asa friend.” Προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν αἷς ἐμὲ “ show
this confidence to Onesimus, and receive me, with
kindness.” See note on ver. 12.

18. εἰ δὲ τι ἠδίκησέ σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγει.
The Apostle now assails him on the side of interest.
From the words εἰ δὲ τι ἠδίκησε---ὀφείλει, Grot. and
many moderns infer that he had been guilty of rob-
bery as well as desertion. But I agree with the
recent Commentators, that the terms will scarcely
authorise us to suppose this. “Hdi«. may not only
apply to the having wronged his master by depriv-
ing him of his services during his absence, or perhaps
by idleness before. What the Apostle means by the
ὀφείλει, is not easy to determine. It would seem a
strange term to use with reference to any money
Onesimus had robbed his master of. Though some
consider it as an euphemism. Most recent Com-
mentators, as Benson and Heinr., think that he had
somehow contracted debts, which his master had
been obliged to pay. It would, however, be desir-
able to hidve some evidence on his matter, which the
Civilians might furnish us with; though, as to Grot.,
he here fails, as being on another scent. If it were
worth while to hazard a conjecture, I would suggest,
that possibly Onesimus, when he absconded, might
have procured himself provisions, &c. in his master’s
name.

18. τοῦτο ἐμοὶ ἐλλόγει, i. 6. literally ‘reckon that in
the account between us as an item for me to pay.” So
Theophyl.: ἐμοὶ εἰς χρέος τοῦτο λόγισαι, ἐμὲ ἔχε ὠφει-
λέτην.

19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ, “ For greater

PHILEMON. 381

certainty, take my engagement; I Paul (do hereby)
write with my own hand, I will repay it.” So οἰκειο-
χείρος ἀσφαλεῖαι, in Pachym. L. 6,26. and αἰχειόχειρος
in Ducange Gloss. Grace. Commentators are not
agreed whether this denotes that the Apostle wrote
the whole letter with his own hand, or only this por-
tion; as Jerome thinks. Some Commentators here
dwell on the generous magnanimity of the Apostle ;
while others recognise any thing but a serious en-
gagement. The latter opinion is countenanced by
the antients: but the truth probably lies in the me-
dium. ‘The words following seem too serious to’per-
mit us to entirely adopt the latter opinion.

19. ἵνα μιὴὴ λέγω. Benson paraphrases thus: “Though
Ido not say that, if we were to balance accounts,
you owe me this, and even your own self besides.”
Notwithstanding what Benson says, it should seem
that Philemon had been personally converted by
Paul. Rosenm. here compares Simplic. on Epict.
37. Τροφεῖς οὗτοι καὶ ἐπιμέληται οὐ τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν,
αὐτῶν εἰσι. The πρὸς in προσοῷ. has much force;
though in general προσοῷ. signifies to owe in arrear.

20. val—Kupiw, ** Do (82), brother, grant that I
may enjoy this from thee, as a Christian (as from
thy conversion). See the examples of oy. adduced
by Hypke and Wets. ᾿Ανάπαυσόν---Κυρίῳ. The
sense of this clause is obscure, and variously ex-
plained. It plainly means, ‘* grant my request,”
and may be best rendered, “ gratify my heart (see
the note supra, ver. 7) in this matter connected with
the religion of Christ.”

21]. πεποιθὼς τὴ ὑπακοὴ σου ἔγραψά σοι. Benson and
others take ὑπακοῇ in the sense compliance. But I
prefer the more usual signification obedience, viz. to
the precepts of the Gospel, which would secure his
compliance in the matter. Εἰδὼς ὅτι---ποιήσεις. The
Apostle’s meaning is not clear. Some think this
hints that he should manumit Onesimus. Others
recognize no such meaning. At all events the de-

382 PHILEMON,

licacy of the Apostle has here, as often elsewhere,
effectually prevented our arriving at any certainty.

22-25. ξενίαν, a lodging. Heinr. observes that
this only imports lodging, and does not include
board: tor τράπεϑαν is not, with Ros. and others, to
be supplied. See, however, the note on Acts 28,
23. Διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν, can require no explanation
to the readers of St. Paul. Xagiod. is an elegant
mode of expression. With respect to the saluta-
tions, they require no explanation. ‘They are simi-
lar to those at the close of the Colossians: and Ro-
senm. refers to Storr’s illustrations on that Epistle.
On the μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, compare 2 Tim. 4, 22.
and the note.

383

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

CHAP. I.

Ver. 1. πολυμερῶς Kal πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὃ Θεὸς
λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐ. τ.π. For unaffected dignity
and simple grandeur this proeme can hardly be
equalled by any thing to be found in Scripture (cer-
tainly nothing in the Classics).

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως. It is not agreed on
by the Commentators whether these terms are to be
distinguished, or regarded as synonymous. The
former opinion is chiefly adopted by the antients
and earlier moderns; the latter, by the more recent
Commentators. Considering that St. Paul (for I
take it for granted, and it has, I think, been satis-
factorily proved, that he wrote this Epistle) seldom
uses words in vain, or, like the Classical writers,
merely elegantiz gratia, the former opinion seems
the more probable; though, from our imperfect know-
ledge of the Greek language, we can scarcely expect
to fully comprehend such nice distinctions. Hence
those who maintain the distinction, differ in opinion.
(See Whitby and Ernesti.) The best founded one
seems to be, that πυλυμερώς has reference to the
many parts of the prophecies, or to the various times
at which God revealed his will, and also various
places; πολυτρόπως, to the different modes of reveal-
ing it, i.e. by voice, appearance, visions nocturnal
or diurnal, Urim and Thummim, &c. See, however,
Mackn. In illustration of these words there is an

384 HEBREWS, CHAP. I.

able note of Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. ; a work which,
on this Epistle, ought to be perpetually consulted;
though from it my limits forbid me to introduce
so much matter as I could wish.

Λαλήσας. This word is in Scripture (especially
in St. John) used chiefly of address for the purpose
of religious instruction. See Schleus. Lex. Τοῖς
mat pac, MAN, “ our ancestors.” Article for pro-
noun. As to the ἡμῶν of some MSS., it is a gloss.
Ernesti remarks on the coincidence, in this respect,
of the Hebrew and Greek, as a vestige of the Ori-
ental origin of the Greek language. ’Ev,a, by. 80
Theophyl., διὰ. Προφήταις, ““ Divinely commissioned
and inspired legates.” Em’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμέρων, 1. 6.
(as Schoettg. explains) of the Jewish state, in which
it was predicted the Messiah should appear. ᾿Εν
vio, by his Son.”” This Rosenm. observes, is to
be closely united with the words following ὃν ἔθηκε,
&e.

2. ὃν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων. ‘Vheophyl. well ex-
plains: τοῦ κόσμου πάντος Kupioy, i. 6. all nations, not
Israel only. ‘‘He so calls him (adds Theophyl.)
by way of showing τοῦ τῆς υἱότητος γνήσιον, καὶ τὸ τῆς
κυριώτητος ἀναπόσπαστον. And so the best moderns,
who explain the xa. dominum (for, it may be ob-
served, heirship implies lordship and proprietorship.
See Gal. 4, 1.); comparing the Hebr. WY. See
Gesen. Hebr. Lex. Rosenm. says, Christ is so
called, because he preserves and governs the world,
But even Crell. goes much further, whom see ap.
Whitby. ;

‘The philological Commentators remark on the use
here of τιθέναι for ποιεῖν. It is, however, a stronger
term, and is well rendered constitute, appoint. Δι
οὗ Grot. and some others would render ‘ propter
quem ;” fancying an allusion to the Jewish opinion,
that the world was made for the Messiah. But this
is entangling ourselves with Rabbinical fancies very
needlessly ; and since we are told at Joh. 1,5. that
all things were made up by the Logos, or Messiah,

HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 385

we can be at no loss to perceive the sense of the
Apostle, who also says the same thing at Col. 1,
. 15—17. See Whitby and Abp. Magee’s IIlustr.
No. 1., and also Ernesti. Τοὺς aim@vas,-the world, τὰ
πάντα, or the universe; the plural being used to ex-
press vastness and infinity. Rosenm. remarks that
aiwy. signifies, 1. a long time; 2. eternity; 3. in the
N. T. the world, (like the Hebr. My), from its
perpetual duration. See Dindorf in loc. and Carp-
Ζον, p. 12.

8. ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ χαρακτὴρ τὴς
ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, **who being the effulgence of his
glory, and the express exemplar, and delineation of”
&ec. Ernesti observes, that ἀπαύγασμα properly de-
notes the light, or rays reflected from a lucid body ;
and that δόξης is (by a Hebraism) put to denote the
Divine majesty, the most excellent of his attributes.
And he compares Sapient. 7, 26. ἀπαύγασμα ἀειδίου,
εἰκὼν τὴς θεότητος αὐτοῦ" also Philo. p. 221. where,
speaking of a sanctuary, he says: ἀπαύγασμα τῶν
ἁγίων (of heaven) μίμημα τοῦ ἀρχετυποῦ. With re-
spect to the χαρακτήρ τὴς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοὺ, this is
nearly of the same sense with the preceding. Tor
χαρακτὴρ, which the Lexiographers and Glosso-
graphers explain by ὁμοίωσις, signifies properly a
mark engraven upon any thing, as on a seal, or die,
for coining; 2. the image (whether in wax, or melted
metal, &c.), so obtained, whichtherefore must repre-
sent the exact similitude of the archetype. So that
the sense is, ‘such an exact image of the Divine
majesty, that he who seeth him, seeth the Father.”
So Chrys. explains it: τὸ ὅμοιον εἶναι κατὰ πάντα,
κατ᾽ οὔσιαν. See also the elaborate explanation of
Theophyl. Here Casaub. aptly cites Col. 1, 15.,
where Christ is called the εἴκων τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ.

3. φέρων τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ,
“ Having sustained and preserved the universe by
the powerful fiat of his word or will.’ So the best
Interpreters render. φέρων, like the Hebr. Nw),
here signifies to bear (up), ἀναφέρω. So Chrys. :

VOL. VIII. Zc

386 HEBREWS, CHAP. I. °

κυβερνών, TA διαπίπτοντα συγκρατῶν. And so Philo
1024. γένος φέρειν. Munthe observes that τὰ πάντα,
to denote the universe, is often used by the Greek
Philosophers. 'Ρήμα τῆς δυνάμεως is for ῥήμα δυνατὸν,
powerful fiat, ‘Eavrov, his own. Others read αὐτοῦ.
But the former, which is found in most MSS. and
Chrys., is well defended by Mich., Braun, and
Heinr. Ar ἑαυτοῦ. This is emphatical. “ By him-
self,” i.e. by the sacrifice of his own death, and not
by that of victims and sacrifices; as 9, 26. διὰ τῆς
θυσίας αὐτοῦ" & 12. διὰ τοῦ ἱδίου aiparos. The ποιησά-
μενος καθαρισμὸν signifies, ““ having made expiation,”
for καθάρισας. So ποιεῖν λύτρωσιν, Luke 1, 68.

8. ἐκάθισεν----ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, ““ seated himself, sat down,
at the right hand (of the majesty of the Father) in
the highest.’ Ka. is properly a reflected verb, sig-
nifying to place or seat oneself, to sit. So the Heb.
aw. The expression sitting at the right hand of, is
also found in the Classical writers, figuratively of
holding a rank next toa monarch. See Matt. 20,
21. But when used in the New Testament of Christ.
it always implies participation in the government,
and equality of rank; as in the case of the sons of
Roman Emperors associated in the imperial dignity,
who were called συνθρόνο. Hence βασιλεύειν, θρόνος,
&c. are ascribed to Christ. See Ps. 110, 1. 1 Cor.
15, 25. A proof of his Divinity. See Knapp Diss.
de Christo ad dextram Dei sedente.

Μεγαλωσύνης ΤΊ Δ signifies, with the δόξα pre-
ceding, majesty, abstract for concrete. ᾿Εν ὑψηλοῖς,
5011. μέρεσι, 1. e. in the highest heaven. So Ernesti.

4. τοσούτῳ κρείττων---ὔνομα. At πόσῳ and ὅσῳ
subaud ἐν ἀπ μέτρω. Here γενόμενος is for ὦν. Din-
dorf, however, renders it redditus, effectus. And
Abresch observes that it depends upon ἐκάθισεν.
Κρείττων, dignior, potior, prestantior. Often used
by the Classical writers of Gods. Διαφορώτερον, more
excellent; as 8, 6., and often in the Classical writers.
ὄνομα, i.e. not name, but dignity. For the Apostle
means not to prove the dignity ascribed to Christ

HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 387

from the name Son; but from his dignity he proves
Christ to be infinitely greater than the angels. ‘The
Jews, it may be observed, attributed one principal
force and authority to the law, that it was promul-
gated by the ministry of angels. (See Acts 7, 53.
and Gal. 3,19.) Hence the comparison of Christ
with angels. Thus the Apostle shows that Christ is
King, Lord,and Creator of all things, and the angels
are but ministers. See Tittm. Op. Theol. p. 231.
(Rosenm.) See the excellent note of Doddr.

Ernesti remarks on this rare use of παρὰ preceded
by a comparative. It answers to the Heb. } and
our than. ἹΚεκληρονόμηκεν. ‘The sense of inheritance
is here, as often in the New Testament and Sept.
(2 Kings 21, 15.), dropped. So the Heb. Sno. The
perfect, too, is for the present, possesseth, hath.

5. τίνι γὰρ---γεγέννηκά ce. ‘The interrogation im-
plies a strong negation, i.e.to xo one. ‘This expres-
sion (Ernesti observes), the Apostle rightly explains
of the eternal generation of the Son of God; and it
is wrongly taken by the Socinians of the generation of
the resurrection ; who appeal to Acts 13, 32., where,
however, ἀνάστησας ᾿Ιησοῦν signifies Jesu dato.”
Thus Ern. would render: ‘“ constituens Jesum serva-
torem;” and the whole passage thus: “Tu Jesu
Messiz es filius meus, ἢ. 6. non es solum homo, sed
idem es Deus, quem ab eterno generavi.” Σήμερον
denotes eternity. See the note on Acts 13, 22., and
consult ‘Tittm. Op. Theol. 231., who rightly observes,
that the whole of Ps. 2. is to be understood and ex-
plained of the Messiah, as the best Jewish Interpre-
ters have invariably done, as Abarbanel, &c. (See
Whitby) ; 1. 6. though it might be fulfilled, in a cer-
tain sense, in David, yet, in a mysterious and far
sublimer sense, it belonged to Christ. And this
seems the safe middle point, the μέτρον ἀριστὸν, be-
tween the two extremes, of supposing this, and such
like passages, to belong only to the Messiah, or only
to David. Mackn. well remarks on the propriety of

eo?

et

ee eee

388 HEBREWS, CHAP. I,

pressing on the Jews arguments of which they ac-
knowledged the validity.

Πάλιν, elsewhere; as Matt. 4, 7. Rom. 15, 10.
The εἰς is taken, by Rosenm., to denote, not stmila-
rity, but reality. Grot. renders it in the place of.
And Abresch takes it for dativus commodi. It
seems, however, to be a Hebrew idiom formed on
the use of 5; though vestiges of it are found in the
Latin. With respect to the words themselves, the
best Commentators are agreed that they are taken
from 2 Sam. 7, 14. Sept.; the phrase standing for
αὐτοῦ. So Dindorf. See Pierce and Mackn.

6. ὅταν δὲ πάλιν---οἰκουμένην.

There is here, Rosenm. observes, either a transposition, or the
πάλιν may (with Heinr.) be taken to signify contra. Doddr.,
Mackn., and Dindorf, render ‘‘ when he again,” ἃς, But the first
mode of interpretation seems the best founded. On the sense of
εἰσαγ. εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην modern Commentators differ in opinion.
See Abresch and Dindorf. Chrys. explains: ὅταν éyyelpion αὐτῷ
τὴν οἰκουμένην. But this is a very harsh and unauthorized hypal-
lage. The two most probable opinions are, Ist, that it denotes
announces his advent, sistit, producit, palam proponit. See 10, 5.
Qdly, ostendit, commendandi caussd. So Heinr. and Dindorf. But I
agree, with Ernesti, that the former (which is the common interpre-
tation) deserves the preference; and it has this advantage, that it
may, in some measure, include the other. Schleus, compares Polyb. :
εἰσαγάγοντας αὐτοὺς Αὐτονίου τοῦ δημάρχου.

The πρωτότοκος (as the article shows) is a common designation
for the Messiah. See Ps. 89, 20. compared with Rom. 8, 29. Oi-
κουμένην; by metonymy, stands for the inhabitants of the world.

6. Kal προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πᾶντες ἀγγελοι Θεοῦ.
Some think these words are from Deut. 38, 43.,
where after εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ dua αὐτῷ the Sept.
has the very same: and the beginning of the verse
is applied to the Messiah at Rom. 15,9 & 10. But
as the words in question are not found in the He-
brew, others (as Rosenm.) think them an insertion
from Ps. 97, 7., where we have προσκυνήσετε αὐτώ
πάντες ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ : and in that Psalm the kingdom
of Christ zs foretold. Indeed, Kimchi says that all
the Psalms from 93 to 101. contain the mystery of
the Messiah. Rosenm. observes that that Psalm

HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 889

may as properly be understood of God the Son as
God the Father; since what is ascribed to the latter
cannot but be applicable to the former; the Father
having given the Son dominion; especially as the
subject is the abolition of idolatry, and the introduc-
tion and universal propagation of true religion, of
which Christ is the author. See Phil. 2, 9—11.
With respect to the argument of inferiority, deduced
from worship, it is irrefragable.

7. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει, “ And, as re-
gards the angels, he saith (of them).” By He is
meant, literally, the Divine inditer, or inspirer of
Scripture. The Commentators subaud 7 γραφὴ (as
2 Cor. 6, 2. Gal. 3, 16. Eph. 4, 5., where see the
notes), which is supplied at 1 Tim. 5, 18. This comes
to the same thing; but the literal sense must be at-
tended to, as pointing at the inspiration of the Old
Testament. ‘This idiom occurs in the Rabbinical
writers. With respect to the words themselves, they
are from Ps. 104, 4. Πρὸς, in reference to, or con-
cerning; as 4, 13. Ὁ ποιών---᾿ῷλόγα. It has been
debated what is here the subject; τοὺς ἀγγέλους and
τοὺς λειτουργοὺς, OF πνεύματα and πυρὸς φλόγα! Most
recent Commentators adopt the latter opinion, taking
πνεύματα to mean winds; as Job 3, 10., and else-
where. And this, Whitby observes, agrees better
with the πυρὸς φλόγα following, and with Ps. 104, 4.,
from whence the words are taken. The argument,
they say, is this: ““ There is nothing great in the
name of angels and ministers, since the Scripture
gives those names to the winds and the lightning
(infinitely inferior to Christ); for all creatures used
by God, extra ordinem, come under that name.”
(See Whitby and Pierce.) But this is manifestly
harsh and far-fetched. And I agree, with Ernesti,
that the former, which is the common interpretation,
is far more natural, and more suitable to the context
(see Mackn.); it is also supported by the Jewish
Interpreters.

8. πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱὸν, sub. λέγει ἡ γραφὴ. Ps. 45,7 & 8.

390 HEBREWS, CHAP. I.

«¢ But concerning, or respecting the Son,” &c. “A
passage (observes Rosenni.) interpreted of the Mes-
siah by many Jewish Commentators, and the Chaldee
Paraphrast.” ‘The δὲ is here adversative, like ἄλλα,
on the contrary. Ὁ Θεὸς. Nominative for Vocative ; :
asin the Hebrew. In which idiom the article loses
its proper force, and stands for the. The Atticism
is a vestige of Oriental phraseology. Our O seems
derived from it.

8. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, ‘‘ for ages of ages,” 1. 6.
for ever. On this phrase see Schleus. Lex. Vet. &
Nov. Test. ‘The ἐστι some render willbe. But that
is not necessary. θΘρόνος is, as Theophyl. observes,
a βασιλείας σύμβολον ; for that implies government,
as does also ῥάβδος. ‘The εὐθύτητος is the genitive
for the cognate adjective; q.d. ‘ most right and
just is thy government.” Some would render (as
Grot., Rosenm., and Wakef.), “ God is thy throne,”
by metonymy; as God is said to be a roek, i. e. the
author of security. But this is very harsh and un-
natural; and, as Wets. observes, is a phrase unknown
in Scripture. ἶ

9. ἡγάπησας, &c. The best Commentators are
agreed that the Aorist is here (as often) used of what
15 S customary : though the present is more frequent.
Ernesti compares the similar use of the Heb. pre-
terite. ‘The sense, then, is: ‘‘ Thou art a lover of
righteousness, and a hater of iniquity.’ Rosenm.
renders δικαιοσύνην causam boni; and ἀνομίαν, causam
mali; comparing Ex. 2, 13. 13, VocNum: B85 9 ΙΘῈ:
And so Hardy, Slade, and Wells, ““ equity and jus-
tice.” (See Wells ap. Slade.)

9. διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισε σε 6 Θεὺς---σου. In the ἔλαιον
ἀγαλλιάσεως there is an evident allusion to the
anointing of Kings, Prophets, and Priests; and, by
a well known Oriental metaphor, it denotes dignity,
happiness, and glory. See Ernesti, Rosenm., and
the Antiquaries. The application is obvious. See
the Commentators. ho are meant by the μετόχους
is not certain. Rosenm. and Dindorf explain it,

HEBREWS, CHAP. I. 391

‘‘ reves coevi et terrestres, Messi longé inferiores.”*
Others, as Doddr., the angels. Which seems not
improbable. Beza, Camerar., Pisc., Wolf, and Er-
nesti, understand the faithful, who are themselves
partakers in the Divine benefits. This I prefer;
‘though it is liable to abuse.

- It is of most importance, however, to attend to
the ἔχρισε σε ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ Θεός cov, which I am surprised
our venerable Translators should have rendered,
“God, even thy God; hath anointed thee ;” since,
from the verse preceding, it is evident that the for-
mer ὁ Θεὸς is a vocative; as it was taken by Chrys.
and Theophyl., who explain: 6 Θεὸς, τουτέστιν, ὦ
Θεὲ, ἔχρισε σε ὁ Θεὸς. And so Pisc. and some other
early moderns, and, of the recent Commentators,
Wolf, Ernesti, and Slade, which last truly observes,
that the two passages thus construed convey a direct
assertion of the Divinity of the Son. |

10. καὶ----οἰ οὐρανοί, “* And (further) thou, Lord,”
&c. from Ps. 102, 26—28. Sept.; a comparison of
which with the Hebrew see in Tittm. Op. Theol.
243. Kar’ ἀρχὰς is for πάλαι, which would have
better represented the sense of the cp. Ἔθεμε-
λίωσας, created; by a metaphor derived from build-
ing, and here adopted agreeably to the popular
opinion of the earth being a plain surface, erected on
-‘massy foundations. Ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν Ernesti re-
gards the τῶν χειρῶν as pleonastic ; but it isa stronger
expression ; hand, in Hebrew, denoting power, in
which (from the nature of God) are also zmplied the
other attributes of wisdom and goodness.

11. αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται---παλαιωθήσονται. For δαιμέ-
νεις some MSS. and Versions read διαμενεῖς. But that
seems to have arisen from emendation: the present,
the Critics observe, being put for the future. Yet

* But that proceeds upon a contracted view of the Psalm, which
even Pearce acknowledges was undoubtedly meant of the Messiah,
and not (as some regard it) a mere epithalamium on Solomon's mar-
riage with Pharaoh's daughter.

+ Euseb. cites 6 Θεὲ, which is evidently a gloss.

392 HEBREWS, CHAP. I.

the present, which is the tempus indefinitum, is here
highly suitable, as used of a Being whose duration is
unconnected with time. Besides, it is required by
the εἶ at ver. 12. ᾿Απολοῦνται is explained by the
antients μετασχηματισθήσονται ἐκ τῆς νῦν ὕψεως. (See
Theophy!.) And so Abresch, who refers to the verses
following, and to 2 Pet. 3, 10—13. The πάντες re-
fers both to the οὐρανοὺς and the τῆς γῆς.

12. καὶ---ἀκλλαγήσονται. ‘The καὶ is rendered by
Ernesti e¢ cum. I prefer for. Περιβόλαιον denotes that
ample cloak called the hyke, which the Orientals
throw over their dress. Under which similitude the
sky, or heaven is represented ; since that is the idea
in the Heb. Ὁ (whence our old word rack, used
by Shakspeare). “Ἑλίξεις, wilt fold up, and lay aside ;
for, as the Commentators remark, we fold up cast
clothes. As to the reading ἀλλάξεις, though found
in some MSS., and defended by the Hebr., it is
rightly rejected by the Critics. Καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται,
i. e. will be changed into the “ new heavens” spoken
of at 2 Pet. 3, 13.

12. σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ, ““ But thou sufferest no such
change, but art always the same.” Rosenm. com-
pares Deut. 32, 39. “See now, that I, even I am he,
nim. And Philo 458. (cited by Carpzov), says that
the sun never changes, but remains αὐτὸς. I would
add, that the Greeks used this figuratively ; as ‘Thu-
cyd. 3, 38., ᾿Εγὼ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶμι, where I shall adduce
many examples.

The next clause seems exegetical, or may be a
parallelism. It is plain that years are said of God,
ἀνθρωποπαθώς ; though, as Rosenm. observes, to say
“they shall not fazl,” is equivalent to calling Him
immortal.

13. πρὸς τίνα---ποδῶν σους From Ps. 110., Sept.
The interrogation implies a strong negative; q. d.
‘‘God never makes angels συμβασιλεύειν ; they are
rather his servants.” In the κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν pov there
is an allusion, such as I noted at ver. 2., to the cus-
tom of Kings associating their sons with them in the ἡ

HEBREWS, CHAP. 1. Il. 893

government, either temporarily, for a particular
purpose (as the subduing of enemies) ; or for a con-
tinuance. The nature of the Paci. is explained at
1 Cor., 15, 25. In the words ἕως é€&v—oov we are
not to seek refinements. ‘They are said κατ᾽ ἀνθρω-
ποπαθείαν, and have an allusion to the Oriental
custom.

14. οὐχὶ πάντες---σωτηρίαν. The argument is con-
tinued. ‘* Are not (these angels) all (but) ministering
spirits deputed by God to assist those who shall be
heirs of salvation, and not to be compared with
Christ, who requires not their services.” Λειτουργικᾶ,
i.e. τῴ Oew. The term λειτουργ. is used of any
service or office; but was especially applied to
Divine services, as of Priests, who were styled δοῦλοι
Θεοῦ; and, therefore, is very applicable to angels.
These are here described as πνεύματα εἰς διακονίαν
ἀποστελλόμενα, 1. 6. of no self-derived dignity, but
solely of deputed authority. And the Apostle adds
(as Theophyl. observes), in order to raise the minds
of his hearers, and show God’s care of us, that angels
so superior to us are deputed, διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κλη-
ρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν, Where Rosenm. observes, σωτηρίαν
must not be understood of eternal salvation, but only
of assistance in perils and necessities. But that is
too bold an interpretation, and unwarranted by the
context: for ifnothing more than this were meant,
there would be something frigid in Kaygov., &c. It
seems best to take σωτηρία in its most extensive
sense, of the welfare of men, both in this world, and
in the next.

CHAP. II.

Verse 1. Dindorf thinks that ver. 1—5. are paren-
thetical, and meant to admonish the Hebrews to cul-
tivate faith and steadfastness in the Christian doc-
trine. Abresch justly objects to the division of the
Chapter here, since that is closely connected with
the preceding; and the division ought (he thinks)

394 HEBREWS, CHAP. II.

to have taken place at ver. 4. This (1 add) is sup-
ported by the authority of Chrys., who commences a
new Homily at ver. 5.

1. διὰ τοῦτο---παραῤῥυῶμιεν, “ wherefore (such being
the super-angelic and supreme dignity of Christ) we
ought the more studiously to attend to the doctrine
we have received from him in the Gospel, lest we let
it slip.” Περισσοτερῶς, the more earnestly and stu-
diously. The περισσοτερῶς shows the real, though la-
tent, meaning of the Apostle, which (as Theophyl.
remarks) is, to hint, from the infinite superiority of
Christ to the angels, who were the promulgators of
the Law, that they ought τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦτο λαληθεῖσι προσ-
έχειν περισσοτέρως τοῦ νόμου. The terms περισσοτέρως
and προσέχειν, 5611. τὸν νοῦν, must both be taken
intensively, and emphatically, and import studious
attention, obedience to, and firm constancy in. At
ἀκουσθεῖσι must be supplied ῥήμασι.

On the sense of the μὴ πότε παραῤῥυῶμεν Commen-
tators are not agreed. It is copiously treated on by
Dindorf. Most antients, and some moderns, inter-
pret, “lest we should slip from them,” 1. 6. they
(and the salvation they announce), should slip from
us, and we perish. So Chrys.: ἐμπέσωμεν, ἀπολώμε-
θα. And soalso the Syr. and Arabic. And this in-
terpretation is learnedly defended and illustrated by
Abresch, who adduces examples from Eph. Syr.; and
Clem. Alex. Many specious objections to it, how-
ever, are urged by Dindorf, who would abandon the
sense fail and perish; and he explains, with the
English Commentators, “let slip from our minds.”
So the E. V. But the context seems to require the
interpretation above detailed, which is supported by
Hamm., Whitby, and Slade. On the exact ratio
metaphore there may be some uncertainty: but the
above, I conceive, is the sense intended.

2. ἐν γὰρ---βέβαιος. Another argument for obedi-
ence to the Gospel; since the contempt of it will
bring greater punishment than that of the Law of
Moses. (Dindorf.)

HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. 395

The sense of ὁ λόγος Dindorf has copiously treated
on. After all, I agree with Rosenm., that the con-
text sufficiently shows the λόγος to signify the Mosaic
Law. On the δι’ ἀγγέλων λαλ., see the notes on
Acts 7, 53., and Gal. 3, 19., and consult the admira-
ble notes of Whitby, here, and on 9, 5. Βέβαιος ἐγέ-
vero Rosenm. explains, ‘‘ valorem accepit, ita ut
nemo impuné eam transgredi posset.” So it is said
of the Gospel, Rom. 4, 16. IlagaPaois, like Ay,
signifies transgression of a law, or command. Ilapa-
κοὴ, disobedience. But the nature of the term mav
imply contempt and contumacy. See Deut. 32,
35. Μισθὸς and μισθοδοσία are, like many similar
words in all languages, terms of middle signification,
and may denote either reward, or punishment, the
latter, ironicé. ‘To the illustrations of the Commen-
tators I add Eurip. Or. 833., πατρώων παθέων ἀμιιβάν,
where the Scholiast explains ἐκδίκησιν. Adschyl.
Theb. 1023., τοὐπιτίμιον λαβεῖν, mercedem, τιμωρίαν.
Hor. Carm. 3, 24, 24. et peccare nefas, aut pretium
emori.

3. πώς ἡμιεῖς---σωτηρίας ;

How shall we escape this ἐκδικὸν μισθοδοσίαν, if we neglect (to
lay hold of) so great a means of salvation ;” for such may be the
sense of τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας ; though Grot. and Rosenm. think that
λόγου is to be supplied, i. 6. ‘a doctrine which brings all such sal-
vation.” There is, it may be observed, a tacit comparison between
the temporal σωτηρία of the Law, i. 6. (as Theophyl. says) deliver-
ance from their enemies, and the enjoying the good of the Law, and
the eternal salvation held out by the Gospel. (See Chrys.) Dindorf
takes owr. for the Christian religion. But that is not necessary. The
terms éxgevyw and ἀποφεύγω (he observes) are often used, with or
without an added noun of condemnation or punishment, to denote
acquittal; as Rom. 2, 3., ἐκῴ. τὸ κρίμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. ᾿Αμελήσαντες is
a mild term, under which a stronger sense is couched: and Glass,
Abresch, and Dindorf, remark on the κοένωσις, so usual with
St. Paul.

3. ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα---ἐβεβαιώἼη, “ which having
been at the beginning promulgated by our Lord him-
self, was firmly testified, and communicated to us by
those who heard it.” The phrase ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν is
often used in the later writers, from whom Wets.
adduces examples. But propriety required τοῦ λα-

396 HEBREWS, CHAP. II.

λεῖσθαι. The εἰς ἡμᾶς is for ἡμῖν ; as in 1 Pet. 1, 25.
A frequent idiom, derived from the Hebrew use of
. Theophyl. well annotates on the whole verse
thus: Τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐπάγων, φησὶν, ὅτι ἡ σωτηρία αὔτη
οὐ διὰ προφητών ἢ ἀγγέλων ἐλαλήθη, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ
δεσπότου πάντων, ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς πηγῆς ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχὴν'
εἶτα διεπορθμεύθη καὶ εἰς ἡμᾷς βεβαίως καὶ πιστώς δι᾽
αὐτῶν τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τοῦ λόγου καὶ ὑπηρετῶν. ‘There
has, however, been some difference of opinion
on the force of the ἐβεβ. which some moderns,
as Carpzov and Rosenm., take not in the sense
confirm, but simply pervenire. But this is des-
titute of all authority, and is not to be sup-
ported by an etymological derivation of βεβαιόω
from βαίνω, as if it received the sense of confirm,
‘‘ quia fama crescit eundo.” (See Rom.) It is more
correct to say that βεβαιόω comes from Pegaios, and
that from βαίνω, to go; 4. ἃ. something to go upon,
trust-worthy ; a metaphor taken from passage over
marshes, or ice. But this is no support to such a
frigid fancy. Abresch, Heinr., and Dindorf, rightly
consider ἐβεβ. as a vox pregnans for ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμάς
βεβαία. And so Ernesti and Morus. But I rather
prefer the explanation of Theophyl. above cited.*
Certainly there was no reason for any to infer
from the we, that St. Paul could not be the writer of
this Epistle; since he derived his knowledge of that
from our Lord himself. ‘The best Commentators are
agreed, that there is here a κοίνωσις, and that the
Apostle (as often) speaks communicative, and only
means the Hebrews, whom he is addressing. For

* Dindorf also refers to Glass Ph. Sacr. 1, 185., and further
remarks: “ Acutissimé et rectissim@ Michaelis in notis ad Vers.
germ. ἐβεβαιώθη diversum esse ab eo animadvertit, quod in versu
seg. de confirmatione Evangelii, per portenta et miracula dixit, quie
ἀσφαλείαν divinam efficiant, cum hic de humana sermo sit, que in
eo cernitur, quod testes ea que auribus percepissent, cum bona fide
aliis traderent.” The whole praise of acuteness and rectitude of in-
terpretation must, however, whatever it be, be given to Theophyl.,
from whom it was borrowed,

HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 397

these had derived their knowledge from others who
had been eye and ear witnesses. ‘This mode of
speaking is indeed very frequent in the Classical
writers.

4. συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος---θέλησιν, ““ God (himself)
bearing a further testimony (to the truth of their
accounts) by signs and wonders, and various miracles
and distributions of the Holy Spirit (imparted),
according to his own will and pleasure.” Such is (I
conceive) the true sense ; though Carpzov and Din-
dorf will not allow the σὺν in cuver. to have any
force: and I am aware that it is, in the Classical
use, often very faint: yet I have seldom found that
the Apostle uses even a Preposition in composition
needlessly. I grant that the ἐπὶ cannot signify magis,
but answers to the ad in attestari. On the σημ.; rep.,
and δυναμ.., I have before treated. Indeed all the
three terms occur at Acts 2, 22., δυνάμεσι καὶ τέρασι
καὶ σημείοις, where see the note. When thus associ-
ated, it is needless to refine on each term; as do
Whitby and Abresch. We may understand the
accumulation of all the terms denoting supernatural
works, as meant to express miracles of every kind
and degree.

By the μερισμοῖς πνεύματος ἁγίου, are plainly denoted
those supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit vouch-
safed to some of the primitive Christians, in con-
firmation of the truth of the Gospel, and which are
adverted to at Cor. 12,13 & 14., where I have treated
copiously on their nature, and shown their reality.
The very terms μερισμοῖς and κατὰ τὴ θέλησιν,
suggest (as the Commentators remark), that they
were not given to all.

I would observe, that the striking similarity on
this subject, between the phraseology here, and in
the Epistles admitted to be St. Paul’s, has not been
sufficiently attended to; especially at 1 Cor., 12, 11.,
πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν
ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθῶς βούλεται. See also Eph. 4, 7.,
1 Cor. 17, 17., and elsewhere. ‘The Apostle hints,

398 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11.

that as the evidence for the Gospel is so much more
striking and indicative of Divine interposition than
the Law, so it would be more inexcusable to neglect
it.

5. οὐ γὰρ---λαλοῦμεν. The Apostle now returns
to the subject he had before been treating on; and
this verse connects with 1, 14. He adduces the
reasons why the Angels were not permitted to have
dominion over the human race; namely, since the
dignity of man is in itself not much inferior to the
condition of the Angels. (Rosenm.)

5. τὴν οἰκουμένην τὴν μέλλουσαν, “ the times of the
New Testament.”? So termed in the style of the
Prophets, who call this dispensation such symboli-
cally. (Ernesti.) So Dindorf. Doddr. explains it of
the kingdom of the Messiah, which extends not only
to earth, but to heaven. See Whitby and Mackn.
Slade thinks it probable that the phrase refers to the
state of the Gospel here on earth; that being what
the Apostle is speaking of (περὶ ἧς λαλοῦμεν). And
he refers to Acts 7, 53., and Gal. 3, 19.

6. διεμαρτύρατο δὲ ποῦ τὶς, λέγων, Testatur potius
ille ipse divinus vates, qui preedixit ea, que legimus
Ps, 47. (Rosenm.) Carpzov and Rosenm. well re-
mark on this (what to us appears) vague mode of
citation. It is often, they say, used in Philo :* and
this use of τις does not imply ignorance of .the au-
thor (which indeed cannot be supposed in one so
conversant as was St. Paulin such matters). Itisin
fact usual with the Rabbins: and Theophyl. ob-
SErVeS : οὐ λέγει τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀπόντος ATE πρὸς τοὺς ἐπισ-
τήμονας τῶν διαλεγόμενος. (See also Chrys. and Cicu-
men.) Which is, I conceive, the best key to the
explanation of this kind of citation.

The διὰ in διεμαρτύρατο has a slightly intensive
force. ‘The parallelism is here to be attended to:
though the second member is slightly exegetical.
Tits ἀνθρώπου, i.e. COIN fA.

* J add Plutarch Anton. 66. ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ τις παίξων εἶπε.

HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 399

Bishop Middleton has here ably refuted the opinion οὗ Pierce and
Mich., who interpret this Psalm, not (as is commonly done) of
Adam, but of the Messiah alone. yo ΠῺΣ may be taken of Pales-
tine only; and if our Lord does (Matt. 21, 15 and 16.) apply it to
his own times ; yet, though it may prove the secondary, it does not
disprove the primary sense; nor do the ra πάντα necessarily refer
to the angels ; they need only be understood of those parts of crea-
tion just enumerated. “‘ OF this, therefore (continues the learned
Prelate), and many other passages in the antient prophecies, we
may adopt the more usual interpretation, and understand them ina
two-fold sense. If we reject a secondary sense, the multitude of
applications, made by Christ and his Apostles, are fanciful and un-
authorized, and wholly inadequate to prove the points for which
they are cited; if we reject a primary sense, we must believe that
many of the passages alluded to (with regard to the people and
times for which they were originally designed) were merely allu-
sions.” Nothing can be more true than the remark ; and its im-
portance demands that it should be continually borne in mind by
the Biblical student.

7. ἡλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχὺ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους. The
Commentators are not agreed whether at βραχὺ τι
there be an ellipsis of διάστημα, or χρόνου. Most
Critics prefer the datter. But the Classical proofs
adduced are but weak, and the ellipsis is not a little
harsh. A good sense, indeed, may be made either
way; but, according to the former, a more natural
one (I think) will arise. See the able note of
Dindorf.

The other terms require little explanation. Srede-
vow, as Rosenm. observes, signifies properly to give
any one the palm, declare him victor; and hence, in
a general way, ornare. So Philostr. V. Ap. 1, 11.
s. m. οἱ θεοὶ) ---στεφανώσαιντες, οὐ χρυσοῖς στεφανοῖς, ἀλλ᾽
ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσιν. {

8. πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ. The
Apostle proceeds to draw arguments from the above
cited passage. ‘The πάντα may very well extend to
the several classes of brute creatures mentioned at
ver. 7 and 8 of the Psalm, πρόβατα καὶ Boas, Χο. So
Middl. and Ros., the latter of whom compares Gen.
1, 26 and 27.; observing, that hence appears the
dignity of man over the other creatures. Yet I
agreed with Bp. Middleton, that as πάντα may in-
clude all things without exception, angels as well as

400 HEBREWS, CHAP. II.

men; what proves the secondary sense, will not dis-
prove the primary.

8. ἐν γὰρ τῴῷ---ὐποτεταγμένα. By the he is, as
Rosenm. truly observes, meant the author of the
Psalm, and not God. And he adds, that poets are
often said to do what they represent others to have
done; asin Hor. Sat. 1. Poeta jugulat Memnonem.
I add Thucyd. 1, 10. πεποίηκε γὰρ χιλίων καὶ διακοσίων
νεῶν, where I shall adduce numerous other examples.

᾿Ανυπότακτος signifies either ‘“‘ one who zs not to be
subjected ;” or, one who is not subjected ; as here.
Of both senses Abresch produces examples.

8. νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα.
Rosenm. explains thus: ‘* Sensus est, illa verba
Psalmi in nullo hominum plenum effectum habuisse.
Nam utimur quidem rebus creatis, sed non omnia
nobis subjecta sunt. Utimur 6. c. pecoribus, vertm
seepe etiam a pecoribus violamur. Nunc autem os-
tendit Paulus v. g. seqq. id, quod de nullo homine
stricté dici possit, id de Christo solo dici strictissimo
sensu posse. Ergo locus Psalmi, qui litteraliter de
homine agit, nunc ad Jesum transfertur. Summa
reiest: Deus non angelum quendam, sed hominem
facere voluit Dominum. Sed non nisi unus homo
est, qui verissime et strictissimé dominus omnium
dici possit.”

9. τὸν de-—Oavarov. The construction and sense
are thus laid down by the best Critics: ᾿Ιησοῦν δὲ
βλέπομεν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξη καὶ τιμῇ ἐστε-
Φανομένον, τὸν βραχὺ τι map ἀγγέλους ἡλαττώμενον,
ὅπως χάριτι, &c. Him who was made a little lower
than the angels for a short time, i. 6. who took the
human nature, even Jesus, we behold, on account of
his having suffered death, crowned with glory and
honour.” Bp. Middleton observes, that the subject
is τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι----Ἰησοῦν, and the predicate is all
which follows. ‘The subjoined clause ὅπως, &c. (he
adds) may be understood to contain the reason why
Christ suffered death, as mentioned in διὰ τὸ πάθημα.

The words of the Psalm manifestly point at the

HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 401

Divine author of our religion, and describe his state in
the humiliation of his incarnation, and in the exalta-
tion of his glory after he had accomplished the work
of human redemption. Many novel opinions and
interpretations on this verse are detailed and reviewed
by Dindorf, which I leave in medio,

10. ἔπρεπε γὰρ αὐτῷ ---τελειῶσαι. Ratio redditur,
cur Jesus per supplicium mortis ad breve tempus
(paullulum) tenuior fuerit angelis, quia hoc maximé
consentaneum fuisset consilio Dei, quod per Chris-
tum assequi voluisset, ἢ. 6, homines beare. (Ro-
senm.)

Ἔπρεπε Ernesti renders debebat, oportebat; as
Hebr. 7, 16. I prefer (with Rosenm.) “ was worthy
of God; consistent with the Divine attributes ;
suitable to the wisdom of God and his counsels for
our salvation.” So Doddr. takes the expression to
signify, not only that the course he took was well
worthy of God, but that in order to act worthy of
himself, it was expedient that he should take this
method.” Chrys. on Acts 3, 21. renders the ex-
pression ἀναγκὴ ἔστιν.

10. δι’ ὅν τὰ πάντα καὶ OF οὗ τὰ πάντα. The best
Commentators antient and modern are agreed that
this signifies, “for whom and whose glory are all
things, and through whom all things exist.” So
Chrys. and Theophyl.: αὐτὸς αἴτιος πάντων, καὶ ὑπ᾽
αὐτοῦ πάντα γίνεται. ‘This, Rosenm. observes, is ἃ
designation of the Supreme Being. Compare Rom.
11,36. The ἀγαγόντα must be reterred to the ἀρχη-
γὸν following. It signifies literally, ‘¢ who was bring-
ing,” or, was to bring. Dindorf, Grot., and Ernesti
render ‘intended to bring.” Rosenm. observes,
that it is synonymous with ἡγεμόνα, or aywyéa, used
by Philo of a general, and of Moses, leader of the
people. By δόξαν is meant the Christian glory, i. e.
salvation and happiness. This is just after inter-
changed with σωτηρίας. Πολλοὺς υἱόυς. Said of all true
Christians, as being (to use the words of the Apostle,
1 Pet. 1, 3.) “begotten again to a lively hope,” &c

VOL, VIII. 2D

402 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11,

See also infra ver.11. ᾿Αρχηγὸς signifies not only
leader, but author. So Theophyl.: αἴτιον. And
Rosenm. illustrates this from Dionys.: νόμων apyny.
Dindorf thinks it is an hendiadis for agy. καὶ σωτὴρ,
Acts 5, 81. Carpzov cites from Philo: παλιγγε-
velas apynp. ἡμέρων. And he observes that ἀρχηγέτης
is the more usual term. Other examples of this sig-
nification may be seen in the note of Blomfield on
fEschyl. Ag. 250. where he rightly explains the term
«“ς quctorem, non ducem.”

The τελειωθῆναι is well explained by Rosenm.:
ἀχθῆναι εἰς δόξαν, ad felicitatis metam perductum, do-
minum summum constituisse. The term signifies pro-
perly “to be brought to the end or goal, and enjoy
the fruits of one’s labour ;” as 12, 28. Phil. 3,11. It
is an agonistical metaphor. See Faber Agon. L. 3,
10. p. 255. Abresch. compares Philo 640. ψυχὴ re-
λειωθεῖσα ἐν ἀρετῶν ἀθλοῖς, Kal ἐπὶ τὸν ὅρον αὐτὸν ἐφικο-
μένη τοῦ καλοῦ. And Dindorf observes, that it is
often so used in the Ecclesiastical writers. See Suic.
Thes. &c. Some, as Michaelis, Semler, &c. inter-
pret rea. consecrate, inaugurate. But though that
sense would not be inapposite, yet the common in-
terpretation is more natural. See the excellent note
of Whitby, who has shown that this is one among
the many other proofs of the doctrine of the atone-
ment. See also Wets. in loc. |

11. ὅ,τε γὰρ---πάντες, “ For he that expiates, and
they who are expatiated by him (the redeemer and
the redeemed) are all of one.” ‘Ayiagew here signi-
fies to consecrate oneself to death, and die for the
expiation of their sins, and thereby redeem them ;
as infra, 10, 10. Passages strongly discountenancing
the Socinian tenets. (Ernesti.) The ἐξ ἑνὸς is by
some (as Pierce, Wells, Mackn., and others,) ex-
plained of Abraham. And Rosenm. subauds γένους
or σπέρματος (the same nature) ; which he thinks is
confirmed by the following 5, 1. ‘It was fitting (says
he) that the Author of salvation should be not an
angel, but one endued with human nature.” Which
is very true, but scarcely what the Apostle here

HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. 403

means. I prefer, with the antients and some mo-
derns (as Limborch, Ernesti, Morus, Heinr., and
Dindorf), to refer it to the Father; ‘* we areall sons
of one God ; though in various ways.” Ὁ μὲν (says
Theophyl.) ὡς γνήσιος υἱὸς, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
πατρὸς, ἡμιεῖς δὲ, ὡς κτίσματα. ?

On οὐκ ἐπαισ χύνεται Chrys. and other antients (and
also Ernesti) remark, that this shows the superiority
of Christ to the human nature. So Phot. ap. Cicu-
men. 330 c. Εἰπὼν οὐκ ἐπαισ χύνεται, ἔδειξε τὸ διάφορον"
οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν ἀδελφὸς, καὶ τοι ὧν ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπος,
AAA κατὰ φιλανθροπίαν, ἐπειδὴ ἐστι καὶ ἀληθῶς Θεός.
See also Theodoret and Abresch.

12. ἀπαγγελώ---ὁμνήσω σε. It is now shown, from
some passages of the Old Testament, that the Mes-
siah is not ashamed to call men his brethren. (Ro-
senm.) This is from Ps. 22, 23. and agrees in sense,
though not in words, with the Sept. ; διηγ. being used
for ἀπαγγ. The ὄνομα Ernesti explains of God, and
his perfections, acts, and benefits towards men. Din-
dorf observes, that the force of the proof turn on τοῖς
ἀδελφοῖς pov. By the ἐκκλησ. is meant the nation
congregated in the Temple of Jerusalem. The ἐν.
μέσῳ, Ernesti rightly remarks, is simply for in, apud,
inter. And he renders: ‘‘in ccetu fidelium.” See his
note, and Abresch.

Both the Jewish and the best Christian Interpre-
ters are agreed that the Psalm is, upon the whole,
meant for the Messiah. And therefore, though
petty difficulties may be raised on certain passages,
yet they are not such as to shake that opinion; nei-
ther is it necessary to resort to the common Θεὸς
ἀπὸ μηχανῆς, that the Apostle argues ex concessis.

13. καὶ πάλιν" ᾿Εγὼ ἔσομαι πεποιθὼς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. The
passage is by some Commentators thought to be de-
rived from [s. 8,17. By others, from Ps. 18, 3.;
especially (they think) as, from the repetition of the
καὶ πάλιν, the two clauses cannot belong to the same
passage: and though Whitby objects, that the words
are not found in the Psalm, yet (they reply) they

Zp?2

4.04 HEBREWS, CHAP. II.

are found in 2 Sam. 22, 3., of which it is nearly a
copy. But many eminent recent Commentators urge
a yet more fatal objection, that the Psalm contains
no allusion to the Messiah. It is well observed by
Dind. that the words differ so slightly from those of
the passage of Isaiah, that no one would ever have
doubted that they had been taken from thence, had
it not been for the καὶ πάλιν, which made some
fancy another passage was referred to, and they fixed
on the Psalm. But Heins., Carpzov, Vitringa, and
Rosenm. are agreed that the πάλιν may denote not
different passages, but a continuation of the same
passage. See their examples.

The force of the argument is obvious. By the
τὰ πάντα are meant (as before) sons of God and
Christ, and faithful disciples, whom God giveth to
Christ to be trained. (Joh. 17, 22.)

14. ἐπεὶ οὖν--- μετέσχε τῶν αὐτῶν, “ Since there-
fore the children (see ver. 13.) are partakers of flesh
and blood, he also was made partakers of the same.”
It is observed by Dindorf, that the παιδία supplied
the Apostle an occasion of unfolding what he had
just said.

Σὰρξ καὶ αἵμια is a common expression to denote
the human body (as 2 Cor. 4, 11.), or the human na-
ture; as here. Others combine a notion of afflic-
tion and frailty. But this seems precarious. See
Ernesti. Τὰ παιδία properly denotes little children ;
but it is often used (as here) as a term of affection.
Not dissimilar is the use of the Italian diminutives.
Kal, so also. Ulaparayciws signifies not only in a
similar manner, but in the very same manner. So
Chrys.: οὐ φαντασία, οὐδὲ εἰκὼν, ἀλλὰ θεία. Many ex-
amples are adduced by the Philologists, the most ap-
posite of which is Demosth. Olynth. 3. παραπλησίως
καὶ ὁμοίως. And they might have added the passage
from which that seems to have been imitated;
namely, Thucyd. t. 1. 236. ὅμοια καὶ παραπλήσια.

Merécye answers to κεκοινώνηκε. Both terms are
explained nanscisci, habere. Yet there is an obvious

HEBREWS, CHAP. II. 405

propriety and beauty in the terms, which signify
more than habere. See Beausob. ap. Slade.

14. ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου---διάβολον, “ that by his own
death he might put down and deprive of his power
him who had the power over death, namely, the
Devil.”

We have here a refined and znigmatical mode of expression,
which all who have read Thucyd., Tacitus, and Sallust, will remem-
ber is perpetually found in those writers, and occasionally in the
best Classical authors. Τοῦ θανάτου, “ his own death.” Karapy.
must here mean “ deprive of his power.” But the exact force of
the sentence (which is expressed in a refined and somewhat obscure
manner) has not been distinctly seen by the Commentators. [ is
plain that the expression κράτος ἔχειν τοῦ θανάτου cannot be used
of the Devil, except improprié, and in a certain respect. On the force
of the allusion Commentators differ. Some eminent moderns think
the Apostle has reference to the common opinion among the Jews,
that a certain evil angel presided over death, whom, from a misin-
terpretation of Prov. 16.14. they called the angel of death, and to
whom they assigned the name d4smodeus, or Samael. (See more in
Grot., Rosenm., and Dindorf.) But it seems little probable that the
Apostle would seriously allude to such a base and grovelling piece
of superstition. [1 must assent to the antients, and most moderns,
that there is an allusion to the history of the fall in Genesis, respect-
ing which our Lord, Joh. 8, 44., says ‘‘ the Devil was a murderer
from the beginning.” And, as being the author of sin, and so of
death also, (the latter being introduced by the former,) he may be
said figuratively to have had the power of death, and that not only
temporal, but egternal. (See Milton's Parad. Lost,1].1. init.) But
by his own death our Lord (vanquishing, as Theophyl. says, the
Devil by his own weapons), by offering himself up for the expi-
ration of our sins, did thereby destroy the cause of eternal death
even sin.

15. καὶ ἀπαλλάξη----ὸδουλείας. This adverts to ano-
ther benefit of his death, namely, that faithful Chris-
tians were not only delivered from eternal death, but
from an excessive fear of death temporal, which,
without that hope, would have been intolerable. I
would compare | Arrian Epict. L. 3, 26. fin. κεφάλαιον
τοῦτο πάντων τῶν κακῶν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, καὶ ἀγενείας καὶ
δείλιας" οὐ Θάνατος ἐστι, μᾶλλον δὲ ὁ τοῦ θανάτου φόβος.

Rosenm. observes that at ἀπαλλάξῃ (a term used
properly of liberation from servitude) we may sup-
ply Φόβου from φόβῳ just after. Διὰ παντὸς τοῦ Say

is for διὰ πάσης ϑωῆς; ; of which idiom the philological

4.06 HEBREWS, CHAP. II.

Commentators furnish examples from Philo and other
writers. Indeed, it is found in many good authors.
Yet, from the examples adduced by Dindorf, as
Ignat. ad Trall. c. 9. τὸ ἀληθινὸν ϑῆν" and Eph. c. 17.
μὴ αἴχμαλωτίσῃ ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ προκειμένου Syy, it appears
(as he says) to belong to later Graecisms.

"Evoyos (which comes from ἐνέχεσθαι, to be held
bound) is here used in its primitive sense, obnoxious,
subject to. So Theophyl.: κατέχεσθαι. By dova. is
meant the slavish fear just spoken of.

16. οὐ γάρ δήπου---ἐπιλαμβάνεται. On the sense of
these words some difference of opinion has always
subsisted. The Greek Commentators and the Latin
Fathers (including the Vulg.), and most moderns,
render ἐπιίλαμβ. assumpsit, assumed our nature. But
the earlier Greek Fathers (as Ernesti says) explain
it βοηθήσει, protect, assist, redeem. And this inter-
pretation is adopted by Grot., Hamm., Whitby, Wells,
Pierce, Pyle, Ernesti, Mackn., Rosenm., and the
most eminent recent Commentators. See Ernesti
Inst. Int. N. T. p. 201., and his valuable note on this
passage. ‘The present is used for the aorist. Er-
nesti shows that in the Classical writers ἐπιλαμβά-
νεσθαι signifies to lay hands on any thing, to help, as-
sist, save, &c. Either interpretation (he observes) is
agreeable to the analogy of faith. Which, then,
must be preferred? That which is agreeable to the
usus loquendi and grammatical propriety, and suit-
able to the context.” On all these accounts (he
shows) the latter interpretation deserves the pre-
ference. And he refers to ver. 14 & 18., where for
ἐπιλαμβ. is substituted βοηθῆσαι. ‘The same interpre-
tation, too, is adopted by Rosenm., who, on the
σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ,, posterity of Abraham, remarks :
“ Paulus, Hebreis scribens, satis habet de illis loqui;
de gentibus alibi loquendi locus. Saltim posteri
Abrahami ἢ. 1. non sunt spectandi ut natio aliqua,
sed opponuntur angelis.”’

17. ὅθεν ὥφειλε----τοῦ λαοῦ, ‘* Whence (because he
was their helper and redeemer) it behoved him to

HEBREWS, CHAP. Il. 407

be, in all things, make like unto his brethren.” The
ὁμοιωθῆναι signifies to be the very same. See the note
supra, ver. 14. Abresch explains it ἰσοθῆναι. I would
compare Artemid. On. 1,13. αὐτῷ ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα.
By the πάντα is meant in all those points connected
with the infirmities and miseries of our nature,
though being χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, 4,15. So Hardy: “non
solum quoad naturam, et conditionem ; sed etiam
passiones, res adversas, et ipsam mortem; i.e. in
omnibus nature patibilis proprietatibus.” “Iva ἐλεή-
μων γένηται, * That he might be a merciful and
faithful High Priest ; merciful, as having himself ex-
perienced the feeling of human frailty and misery,
and who therefore could not but be touched with
mercy and sympathy.” The πιστὸς some render
benign, which seems to suit the preceding; but the
common interpretation, faithful or trust-worthy, who
rightly discharges his office, and to whom we may
safely trust ourselves and our cause, is (I think)
rightly preferred by almost all Commentators, an-
tient and modern. Dindorf says it may either mean
fidelis, qui fidem prestat, or fidus, qui meretur fidem ;
as Mace. 14, 41. προφηταὶ mor. And so Carpzov.
Dindorf, and Rosenm., however, prefer the exposi-
tion I have above laid down.

The ellipsis in τὰ πρὸς Θεὸν is trite. The words
following are exegetical. Eis τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι, &c.,
‘to expiate the sins of the people,” i.e. the whole
human race considered as one people. Grot. and
Dindorf think there is an enallage derived from He-
braism, since it is more usual to say ἱλάσκεσθαι Θεὸν
περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. So the Hebrews use 175, ἐξιλάσ -
κεσθαι ; as in Ecclesiasticus. We may here compare
Ps. 103, 3. and Dan. 9, 24. ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας.

18. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν----ῇΚὡοηθῆσαι. Dindorf observes
that the ἐν ὦ answers to the Heb. Wa, Angl. znas-
much as, quippe, propterea quod. It may be resolved
into ἐν τούτῳ ὃ, or διὰ τούτου, &c. Πειρασθεὶς, tried,
or put to the proof, i. 6. by adversities and calamities.
Δύναται. Ernesti observes that this imports not

408 HEBREWS, CHAP. 11. III.

merely power, or possibility, but also will, or willing-
ness. So Theophyl.: προθυμὸς ἐστιν εἰς τὸ δοῦναι
χεῖρα συμπαθείας.

᾿ This and the preceding chapter Ernesti calls the Scandalum So-
cimianorum ; and the learned Commentator lays down a summary
of the Theological doctrines which may be proved from thence. The
divinity and the humanity of Christ ; the conjunction of both na-
tures in one person; communication of the Divine idiomata; the
two-fold state of Christ and his triple office. ‘The whole treatise
will well repay an attentive perusal; but my limits will only permit
me to introduce the following on the Divinity of Christ. “ This is
defended and confirmed, 1. From the Divine names, c. 1, 8. 9, 10.,
where he is styled Θεὸς. Now it is plain that the true God is
meant ; since the throne of Christ is said to be eternal, and his
kingdom eternal. But eternity can only apply to God. By the
ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως are meant the idiomata Divina; therefore the
subject is the true God. He is said, at ver. 10., to be Κύριος, which
is a word often used by the Sept. to express the Heb. mim. Thus
in the Psalm, at the beginning, there is mm’, the name of the true
God. But it must also appear from the thing itself. For he who
created heaven and earth must necessarily be truly God, and not in
name only. 11. Another proof of the Divinity of Christ is, that to
nim is here ascribed a common essence with the Father, ver.3 & 5.
(For the particulars 1 must refer the reader to the work itself.
Edit.)* HII. This Divinity is proved from the eternity of Christ,
which cannot but imply Deity. Vhat such eternity is ascribed to
Christ is plain, Ist, from his creation of the world (2, 10.), which
implies existence before the world; for before that, time was not,
nor can any thing be thought of but eternity, and an eternal
God. 2dly, from his own immutability (ver. 12). [For the proofs
I must refer to the work itself. Edit.] IV. His Divinity is apparent
from the creation itself. Ν᾽. From creation, too, followed by the
preservation of all things, which is ascribed to Christ, ver. 3. φέρων,
&c. Now the word of God is the fiat of God. And this notion of
the creation can only apply to God. For it is a continuation of
that act of the Divine will by which He was pleased that the world
should exist. VI. The argument is deduced from his dominion over
all things, ver. 2. ὅν ἔθηκε κληρόνομον. [See Ernesti. Ed.] VII.
From the adoration which is due to him from angels and men, ver. 6.
For this universal adoration is an ἀπαυγάσμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ,
which can only be suitable to the one true God.”

CHAP. III.

Verse 1. ὅθεν--- Ἰησοῦν. ‘This is a repetition, with
alteration, of what occurs at c. 2, 1—4. The Apostle
now shows that Christ is greater than Moses, and

HEBREWS, CHAP. IIL. 409

therefore more implicitly to be obeyed. (Ernesti
and Rosenm. )

Ὅθεν, “ this being the case ;” ‘“ these things being
so,” proinde. See Abresch. “Adeagoi ἄγιοι. The
sense of this is copiously treated on by Abresch,
Pierce, Carpzov, and Dindorf. ‘The simplest me-
thod is to consider it, with Ernesti, as equivalent to
Christian friends or brethren. .

1. κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι.

Rosenm. thinks that this calling, or offer, is made by instruction
in the Christian religion, and therefore he is partaker of the hea-
venly calling who has learnt the Christian religion. It is explained by
others, ‘‘an invitation from heaven to the Christian religion, and the
felicity conjoined with it.” Thus ézovp.will be for οὐρανόθεν, like the ἡ
ἄνω κλήσεως at Phil.3,14. The former is the more regular interpreta-
tion: but this participation of the benefits of the Gospel is not obtained
solely, or chiefly, by learning the Christian religion, but, in a general
way, by the profession of faithin Christ at baptism, thereby accepting
the offers made us in the Gospel, and subsequently fulfilling the so-
lemn engagements then made. Thus only shall we become par-
takers of the benefits of the Gospel here, or can expect to participate
in them hereafter.

Κατανοήσατε, ‘ survey, consider the nature and dignity of.”
Ernesti refers to Rom. 4, 19. Τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς
ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν. Ernesti observes that ἀπόστολος properly signifies
one sent, a legate, or interpres voluntatis. So the Latin legatus,
Orator, and the Greek ῥήτωρ. It must here mean, as being taken
with duoroy , the negociator of the covenant: for such is the sense
of duodoy., a term occurring not unfrequently in the Classical wri-
ters. Of the examples here adduced by the Philologists the most
important are Diod. Sic. p. 257. μεσίτης dpodoyias’ and Philo 598.,
where the Pontifex V. T. is called μέγας ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας,
which proves, not that Philo had read this Epistle (as some sup-
pose), but that the expression was in use among the Theologians of
his age. It is also explained by Chrys. τῆς πίστεως ; which comes
to the same thing. Thus is hinted the superiority of Christ to
Moses and Aaron in quality of Divine legation and priesthood. On
the sense of apy. here, Ernesti well remarks: ‘ Dicitur ita, quia
Pontifex Judeorum per victimas in solemni die expiationis sanxit
foedus, quod Deus cum hominibus et fecit et facturus erat per Jesum
Christum. Is igitur typicé sic dicitur, Christus autem proprie, qui
foedus salutare, quod Deus nobiscum fecit, sanguine et morte sanxit,
confirmavit, ratum fecit. Itaque hic est argumentum pro satisfac-
tione Christi.” And Rosenm. annotates thus: ‘“ Sic ἢ. 1. ἀρχιερεὺς
in universum est salutis minister et princeps ; comparatur enim cum
Mose, qui partes ministri divini et servatoris populi sustinuit hacte-
nus quatenus eum primo a servitute in libertatem vindicavit, rem-
publicam ejus et cultum legibus constituit, ac denique eum tanquam

410 HEBREWS, CHAP. III.

rex in deserto aluit, et ad felicitatem promissam duxit.” His matter
is chiefly founded on Tittm. Diss. on the sense of ἀρχιερεὺς in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, found in his Op. Theol. 211 seqq. See the
able illustration of Schleus. in his Lex. in y., or as extracted by Mr.

Slade.
3, 3, 9 Led . .
2. πιστὸν ὄντα---οἴκω αὐτοῦ. A comparison is now

directly made with Moses, who, at Num. 12, 7., is
said to have been πιστὸς ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ Θεοῦ. To
ποιήσαντι, “to Him who constituted him High Priest
and redeemer of the human race. So Chrys.,sup-
plies ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα. See Morus and Din-
dorf. Abresch and Morus, however, think there is
only a reference to the Apostolate, not the High
Priesthood: though one seems intimately connected
with the other. The sense of ποιεῖν here (like that
of the Heb. my) is frequent. See Carpzov. and
Dindort. By the οἴκῳ, Ernesti observes, is meant
family, κάῳ (as Chrys. explains), the Jewish nation
considered as God's family. So Acts 2, 36. οἴκος
Ἰσραὴλ. Now of this Moses was only the Cico-
nomus, or minister; but Christ, the heir and Lord.
Rosenm. observes that the fidelity of Moses consisted
in his leading and governing the people, and accom-
plishing the Divine commands: Chrisé’s fidelity was
shown by his discharge of the two-fold office com-
mitted to him of teaching, (Joh. 12, 42.) and of dying
[or rather, atoning for the sins of the world by his
death. Ed. |

8. πλείονος γὰρ---ὁ κατασκευάσας αὐτὸν. The ya
introduces the reason why we are to attend to Jesus,
namely, because he is greater than Moses. The
παρὰ signifies compared with [and no other is the
force of our than and the Hebr. fo. Edit.] Πλείο-
vos ἢ οἱ πολλῆς παρὸ might have sufficed: but these
double comparisons are Hebraic [and intensive].
(Rosenm.) Ἠξίωται. The term ἀξιοῦσθαι τινος is
perpetually used by the best Classical writers; and,
like the Latin mereri, often signifies more than ob-
tain, receive. (See the numerous Classical examples
of the philological Commentators.) And so Ernesti

HEBREWS, CHAP, III. 411

and others. But here the context requires that it
should be taken in its primitive sense, and full ex-
tent of signification.

With respect to the whole passage itself, there are few which, with
the appearance of familiarity of expression, have more exercised the
Commentators than this, It is impossible for me to notice, much
less review, all the various opinions, for which I refer the reader to
Pole, Wolf, and especially Dindorf ap. Ernesti. I must content my-
self with stating one or two which have the greatest semblance of
truth. The best Interpreters seem agreed that the common ren-
dering, ““ He who hath built the house hath more honour than the
house,’’ cannot represent the sense ; since, however agreeable to the

gure, it is quite inconsistent with the context, It is, too, almost
universally admitted, that by οἴκος we are again to understand
family. But on the exact sense then to be ascribed to the passage,
Commentators are not agreed. The best founded opinion seems to
be that of Ernesti, Dindorf, and most Commentators, for the last
half century, that κατασκευάξειν here signifies condere, constituere.
Dindorf, who has copiously discussed the sense, lays down the fol-
lowing very probable interpretation: “‘ Qui familiam instituit, do-
mum fundat, majorem dignitatem habet, quam ipse ccetus,” i.e.
familia et ii qui ad eam pertinent. He adds that by the founder of
the family we are not to understand God; nor, by the house, the Jewish
Church; but to suppose the meaning to be : Quo major sit conditor
familize quam ipsa illa familia; eo majorem esse Christum Mose, 5.
quo magis prestet auctor familiz eumque anteeat, eo magis etiam
Christum Mose excellentiorem esse. We are (he also observes) to
attend to the relation in which Moses stood to the family of God,
who was no other than CEconomus, and first minister ; and to re-
member that the son of a master of a family may equally be ac-
counted the master as the pater-familias himself.” The interpreta-
tion of Rosenm. differs but slightly from the above. He observes
that κατασκυάξειν often signifies preparare, instituere, adornare ;
as Matt. 6, 10. And he who supplies a family with necessaries is
called the paterfamilias. ‘* Paterfamilias autem (adds he) vocatur
Christus, quia ductor est novi populi, qui ab eo nomen gerit, familie
christiang, moderante tamen Deo, qui summus est paterfamilias,
a

4. πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάϑεται ὑπὸ Tivos. The sense
to be assigned to this verse will depend upon the
interpretation adopted in the preceding one. Ac-
cording to that which I have adopted, it will be as
follows: “‘ Every family has its head, or master, who
provides for its welfare. But God is the supreme
Paterfamilias, to whom his people, whether under
the Old or the New Covenant, owe their origin, and
who sent both Christ and Moses.” Ta πάντα, for

412 HEBREWS, CHAP. III.

ταῦτα πάντα; as Rom. 11, 29. It must, however,
be confessed that the interpretation seems somewhat
harsh and strained. But so great is the awkward-
ness connected with this verse, that we have only
a choice of difficulties; and after all that has been
written upon it (and that has been very consider-
able, as may be seen in the statements introduced
by Dindorf), it will probably ever remain, though
unimportant, one of the δυσνόητα which St. Peter
speaks of in our Apostle.

5. καὶ Μωῦσης---βεράπων. Θεράπων is here not the
same as δοῦλος ; for that is opposed to ἐλευθερὸς, but
θεραπ., to the children, as here tothe Son. See Am-
mon. in voc. It may therefore be rendered mini-
ster, famulus. Eis μαρτυρίαν τῶν λαληθησομένων, ‘ that
he might relate to the people what was to be pro-
mulgated in the name of God.” Μαρτυρεῖν signifies
not only ¢estari, but mandata referre; as μαρτύριον
signifies doctrine. See 1 Cor. 1,6. and 2,1. Moses
did not even remove the camp without the order of
God. (Rosenm.) Moses had acted the part.of a
faithful servant (see Numb. 12, 7.) in promulgating
the dispensation which was to be introductory to
that more perfect one in after times, brought for-
ward by Christ and the Apostles.

6. Χριστὸς δὲ, ὡς υἱὸς ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. On the
meaning of αὐτοῦ the Commentators are little agreed.
Many English ones refer it to God, supposing that
by it was meant, that Moses and Christ were each
faithful in God’s house: which is very true; but
scarcely suitable to the context. I prefer, with some
antients, and the most eminent moderns, to refer the
pronouns respectively to Moses and to Christ. ‘Thus
there would seem to be a double antithesis. (And
so Rosenm.) Moses was faithful, as a servant in
his house, but Christ as a son over his house, i. e.
his own house, or family. It is plain that the
two families represent the Mosaic, and the Chris-
tian dispensation. So Theophyl.: Οἶκος ἦν τοῦ Μωύ-
σέως ὁ λαὸς, οὗ μέρος καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν. Oikoy ἔχει καὶ ὁ
Χριστὸς, yas. Lam aware, however, that much may

HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 413

be said for the reading αὐτῴ, which is espoused by
Schliting, Pierce, Abresch, and Dindorf, whom see.
The sense, however, is much the same.

6. οὗ oikos ἐσμιεν ἡμεῖς, ‘© whose family we Christians
are.’ Rosenm. renders erimus. But this is an ill
founded refinement. ’Edvrep—karacyopev. The
trajectio is manifest. Καύχημα is here (as often)
used in a good sense, to denote joy. Abresch,
Dind., and Rosenm. take καύχημα τὴς ἐλπίδος to
mean “spes lata,” the hope of eternal life on the
conditions under which it has been promised by
Christ. It is well remarked by Theophyl : ”Evravéa
γὰρ προτρέπει αὐτοὺς καρτερεῖν ἐν τοῖς θλίψεσι, καὶ μὴ
ἐκλύεσθαι" οὕτω γὰρ ἐσόμεθα οἶκος Θεοῦ, ὥσπερ ἦν Μωσῆς.
᾿Εγκομιάϑει δὲ αὐτοὺς, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἤρξαντο μὲν, δεῖ δὲ καὶ
τέλος προσθεῖναι.

7. <* Jam in explicanda 18 spe ita pergit, ut co-
hortationem adjungat usque ad finem Capitis tv.
cujus fundamentum ponit locum aliquem e Psalmo
xCv. quare omnem adhortationem verbis inde de-
promptis proponit.” (Dindorf.)

7. διὸ, καθὼς λέγει τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Some Com-
mentators, as Ernesti, conjoin this with what follows
after the long Scripture citation, namely, βλέπετε,
ver. 12. Rosenm., however, thinks it may be un-
derstood elliptically ; q. d. “Suppose that to you
also has been said what the inspired Prophet utters,
Ps. 95, 7—11.” Or sothat the διὸ at ver. 7. may
connect with ver. 8. μὴ σκληρύνθητε, “ proinde ne
sitis contumaces.” Be that as it may, the Apostle
proceeds to exhort them to constancy in maintain-
ing their faith to the last, and shows that a far
greater obedience is to be rendered by Christians to
the new religion than to the old one promulgated by
Moses. ‘This exhortation from ver. 7. toc. 4, 11.,
is founded on Ps. 95., which, in conformity to the
Sept., the Apostle ascribes to David; though the
opinions of recent Commentators are very various.
See Dindorf, for into these doubtful discussions I
shall not enter; only remarking that it may very

414 HEBREWS, CHAP. III.

well bear that double sense. I must, however, notice
the remark of Ernesti, that the expression λέγει τὸ
πνεῦμα supplies an unanswerable argument for the
inspiration of the Psalms. See also Whitby and
Mackn. By the voice, in the mystical and most im-
portant sense, is plainly meant God’s calling in the
Gospel and the revelation of his will in the New
Testament, and the salvation promised by Christ.
See supra, ver1. The emphasis and meaning of oyp..
is too obvious to need dilating on.

8. μὴ σκληρύνητε---ἐρήμωῳ. The student who is
able should here, as in all such passages, compare
the Hebr. text and the Sept., with the aid of such
Commentators as he may chance to possess (especi-
ally the Crit. Sacr. and Pole’s Synopsis, the latter a
work indispensable to those who have not the ads
vantage of a large library), by which minute dis-
crepancies will not need to be reported in a work of
this nature.

Rosenm. observes on the expression Twn ND, μὴ
σκληρύνθητε kas καρδίας, that the same verb occurs in
Ex. 7, 3. 18, 15. and Deut. 2, 30., and is ascribed
like 335, &c., both to God and men; though ina
different sense. Ἔν ro παραπικρασμῷ, the place called
Marrabeth, Exod. 17,7. The word παραπικρασμὸς
(says Rosenm.) signifies literally a violent bitterness,
(the παρὰ being intensive), and, figuratively, rebellion.
Πειρασμοῦ, for Massah, a name of a certain place in
the desert, also given, from some story connected
with it. In which cases it is not unusual for the
Sept. to render the appellatives rather by the proper
signification of the words. Andso does Philo; thus
ex. gr. he terms Jacob, ἀσκητὴν, &c. And so also the
Talmudists. The day of Massah is the ¢zme when
the people were encamped about Massah.”

9. οὗ ἐπείρασάν---τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη. Our transla-
tors render the ov when. But the best critics, as
Gort., Hamm., Whitby, Ernesti, Dindorf, and Ro-
senm. interpret it where, i. e. the places before men-
tioned, Marabahand Massah. And this is confirmed

HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 415

by GEcumen. And so some MSS. (by Gloss.) On
the terms ἐπείρασαν and ἐδοκίμασαν some Commen-
tators refine; and there would seem to be a climax :
but (as Dindorf observes) they are found in an in-
verse order at Ps. 26, 2.; and therefore they appear
to be synonymous, though united, to strengthen the
sense. Hither (Carpzov and Dind. remark) may
signify to doubt of the assistance of God, (i.e. whether
he can or will render it,) and to presumptuously dic-
tate to him when to render it; or (as others explain)
“‘demanding proofs of God’s government, provi-
dence, and power; seeing how far he would bear
with them, whether he would punish them, or not.”
It would be easy (but precarious) to enlarge the
definition. See the note on 1 Cor. 10, 9.

The καὶ is rendered by Grotius, Dind., and Ro-
senmuller, although (like the Heb. 5); as in
Joh. 18, 25., and sometimes in the classical writers,
literally “‘ and (yet).” Ta& ἔργα pov, “ the (won-
derful) works I wrought for their protection,
preservation, and sustenance in Egypt and the
desert, convincing proofs of my power and faith-
fulness.” The τεσσαρ. ἔτη is, in the Sept., united
with the following verse ; διὸ being omitted. And
sosome MSS. And this is required by chronology.
Abresch is of opinion that the words were, in the
Hebrew, left intentionally in medio, so as to be re-
ferred either to the preceding, or the following.
At all events, Matth. thinks the Apostle did in sense
connect the τέσσ. ἔτη with the following clause, as
is plain from ver. 17.

10. διὸ προσώχθιδα---ὁδοὺς μου. ‘The Commentators
are not quite agreed on the sense of προσώχθισα,
which some, as Castallio and Rosenm., render per-
teesus, weary of. By most it is interpreted indig-
natus. Its sense and metaphorical use (as Schleus.
remarks) is the same as that of προσκόπτω and προσ-
κρούω, impingere, to stumble at, be offended and
indignate at, to loathe, feel aversion at, &c. Schleus.
thinks it an Hellenistical use for ὀχθίϑω or ὀχθέω
(Hom. Il. a. 570.). It often occurs in the Sept.

416 HEBREWS, CHAP. III.

See Trom. Lex. Rosenm. cites Sirach 1, 25. ἐν δυσὶν
ἔθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ἡ ψυχή μου.

10. ἀεὶ πλανῶνται τῇ καρδίᾳ. On the sense of these
words Commentators differ ; some thinking the καρδία
to mean the understanding ; others the affections ;
the former taking it of speculative and mental error.
So Camer., Abresch, and Rosenm.; q. d. “ they
always entertain false opinions of me and of my
power and veracity.” Others, as Owen, Dind., and
Schleus., take it of practical error, namely, vice ;
and by xagd. they understand the affections. Per-
haps both may be included. ‘The ὅδους some explain
methods of action. See Is. 55,8. Others, as Est.,
Tirin., and Rosenm., take it to be synonymous with
the ἔργα of the preceding verse. But the former
interpretation seems preferable ; for, as Owen says,
His ways comprehend his works. Dind. interprets,
rationes agendi, ipsa illa de quibus dictum erat ἔργα
ut providentiz Divine documenta. See Deut. 82,
4. & 32. and the authors referred to by Dind.

10. οὐκ ἔγνωσαν, ‘ have not cared to know.” So
Grot. and Owen. It was not a simple ignorance,
but dislike of what they knew.

11. ὡς ὥμοσα---κατάπαυσίν pov. ‘The ὡς is ren-
dered by Grot., Dind., and Rosenm. itaque, like the
Hebr. Ws. By others, so that. Ὀργῇ. This, like
all other human passions, is ascribed to God ἀνθρω-
ποπάθως. Ei. This, the Commentators are agreed,
is, like the Hebr. CN, used in such kinds of oaths
for οὐκ. But the ratio of the idiom is best under-
stood by considering it as an elliptical phrase used
per aposiopesin. The words to be supplied are
obvious. See Whitby. ‘The idiom is not unex-
ampled in the popular use of our own language. 1
can scarcely, however, admit that it is properly called
an oath.

By the κατάπαυσιν μου, is plainly meant the place
of rest, Canaan, and the rest itself there to be en-
joyed. The pov refers to God as the promiser and
conferrer of that blessing. |

HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 417

The application of this to Christians is obvious.
See the Commentators.

12. βλέπετε---ϑῶντος. The genitive ἀπιστίας is
for the adjective, i. 6. “an evil and unbelieving
heart.”—‘‘ For (observes Rosenm.) he evinces an evil
heart who has no faith in the promises, or the threat-
enings of God.” See Rom. 10, 10. ’Ev τῷ ἀποσ-
τῆναι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ϑώντος, “by departing from the living
God.” Rosenm. takes it for εἰς τὸ, &c. By God
is meant His religion, the Christian faith, since he
who apostatizes from Christ, apostatizes from God.
Θεοῦ ϑῶντος. A not uncommon epithet of the
Deity, denoting the true God, as opposed to dumb
idols, and false Gods. But Grot. thinks it is here
used efficaciter, with reference to God’s ever living
to inflict punishment on unbelievers.

13. ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε---ἁμαρτίας. Here ἑαυτούς is
for ἀλλήλους : an idiom frequent both in the Scrip-
tural and Classical writers, of which Dind. adduces
examples. Carpz. shows that under rapek. is com-
prehended teaching, admonition, entreaty, consola-
tion, reprehension, &c., each to be used as the case
may suit. “Aypis οὗ ro σήμερον καλεῖται. The ἄχρις
οὗ is for ἐφ᾽ ὅσον; and καλεῖται is for λέγεται. ‘Lhe
force of the whole phrase is explained by the an-
tients, and almost all moderns, “as long as life con-
tinues; as long as it can be said, to-day do so and
so.” Dind. takes the λέγεται for κηρύσσεται; 4. ἡ,
‘as long as that to-day of the Psalm is read in your
synagogues, and you are able to use its exhortation
for your amendment, and final acceptance.”

13. ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνθῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.
Here there seems to be an ellipsis, which may be
thus supplied. ‘(Use these and all such means)
that none may, by neglect of them, be hardened and
grow callous to all reasoning.” Σκληρύνεσθαι pro-
perly signifies to be so hard as not to yield to the
pressure of the finger, and is here used (as most
Commentators think) of the obstinacy of unbelief,
So Theophyl.: ὥσπερ τὰ πεπωρώμενα σώματα καὶ

VOL. VIII. ΦῈ

418 HEBREWS, CHAP. III.

σκληρὰ οὐκ εἴκει τοῖς τών ἱατρῶν yepoly’ οὕτω καὶ αἱ TKAY-
ρυνθεῖσαι ψυχαὶ οὐκ εἴκουσι τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘The
ἁμαρτίας is by Carpz. and Rosenm. taken for ἁμαρ-
twasis, But this is too harsh. The most eminent
moderns (rightly I think) take it of the error of un-
belief, and temptation to apostasy (and so Theophyl.
To μὴ ἐλπίϑειν ὅτι ἐσται ἀνταπόδοσις), which ecclesi-
astical history informs us had prevailed over many.
And Deind. says the term is often so used in this
Epistle. The word may, however, be taken in its
usual sense, and be not inapplicable; for sin blinds
the understanding, and, by giving undue weight to
carnal reasonings, plunges men into unbelief, and
makes them sink into the torpor of unresisting vice.
Thus some antients explain it ἀναλγησία.

14. μέτοχοι---κατάσχωμεν. ‘These words are pa-
renthetical. The best Commentators regard the
yey: μετ. τ. X., as a periphrasis for to be true Chris-
tians ; Χο. being put for the religion of Christ. The
sense is: ‘*weare partakers of the benefits of Christ’s
religion (here and hereafter) only on condition that
we hold,” ἄς. ᾿Αρχὴν τὴς ὑποστάσεως. A Hebrew
hypallage for ὕποστ. τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ‘ our original con-
fidence.” See Apoc. 2, 5. Ὑπόστασις (from ὑφισ-
τασθαι. to bear up, persist, and also to be firmly per-
suaded) signifies here and in 2 Cor. 9, 4. a farm con-
fidence. And so 11, 1. and often in the New Testa-
ment. (See Schleus. Lex.) Here, then, it denotes
constancy in the profession of the Gospel, or (as
Gret. explains) fidem cum sanctd professione con-
qunctam. :

15. ἐν τῴ λέγεσθαι---παραπικρασμῷ. The Com-
mentators are not agreed on the connection and
force of ἐν tw λέγεσθαι. Most moderns take it to
mean, “ while (I say) it is said, or sounded in your
ears, hear,” &c. And they regard it as a resump-
tion.of what was said at ver. 13. the intermediate
verse being parenthentical. And this mode of in-
terpretation is supported by the authority of Chrys.
and adopted by Grot. and Camer.~ It, however,

HEBREWS, CHAP. III. 419

seems more simple, with others, as Abresch, Ernesti,
and Dindorf, to regard the ἐν τῷ λέγ. as put for κατὰ
τὸ λεγόμενον, “ forasmuch as it is said ;” as 8, 13. ἐν
to λέγειν. And this is partly supported by Theo-
phyl., whose words are these: Karackevages πώς εἶπε
τὸ, μέχρι τέλους" Kal Grow, ὅτι τοῦτο δηλούται ἐν τῷ
λέγεσθαι, σήμερον" τὸ γάρ σήμερον, ἀεὶ ἐστιν.

16. τινὲς γὰρ---Μωύσέως. On the sense of these
words various have been the opinions of critics.
Chrys. and the antients (including the Syr.) and
many moderns (as Rosenm.), would take them inter-
rogatively, regarding the γὰρ not as causal, but
interrogative. They trace the connection thus:
“When it is said, to-day, &c. (I ask), who were
those who, hearing the word of God, rebelled?” (See
Poie.) “ΤΠ Apostle (says Rosenm.) lays before
the Hebrews the example of the Israelites of old,
in order to show them that it 1s not enough to hear
and bear in mind the Divine commands, that we are
also to obey them, and repose faith in the Divine
promises.” Some exceptions (which my limits will
not permit me to state) have indeed been taken to
this mode of interpretation, but perhaps not of suf-
ficient weight to overturn it. See the copious dis-
cussions of Dind. After all, however, there may be
much doubt as to the true interpretation.

17. τίσι δὲ---ἐρήμῳ, On προσωχ. see the note supra,
ver. 10. ᾿Αμαρτήσασιν must here be understood like
the ἁμαρτίας at ver. 13., and denote unbelief and
apostacy. ““ For (as Ernesti observes) unbelief is the
fountain of all sins, as faith is that of all virtues.’
Thus in the present passage vice and sin may be
included. lirrew (Dindorf observes), like the
Hebr. 753, is often used of a violent death, and espe-
cially of Divine wrath. Thus at 1 Cor. 10, 10. it is
interchanged with κατεστρώθησαν. See Joel ver. 5.
Kaa is by many antients and moderns thought to
be put, by synecdoche, for the whole of the bodies.
But to this principle it is unnecessary to resort;

since (as Dind. observes) the κῶλα properly denoted
ἜΝ

4.20 HEBREWS, CHAP. III. IV.

the limbs (arms and legs) as distinguished from the
trunk. And this mode of interpretation (which is
supported by the Syr.) yields quite as proper, and
indeed a preferable sense ; for there is (as Dindorf
observes) an elegant ὑποτύπωσις. It is singular the
Commentators should not have compared Ps. 141, 8.
‘© our bones lie scattered, as when one breaketh and
heweth wood upon the earth.” And this is illus-
trated by the accounts travellers give us of the state
of the Asiatic and African deserts, especially Den-
ham and Clapperton in their recent travels into
Zahara. Now the κώλα is a very suitable term;
since (as we learn from the Medical writers) it de-
notes the larger bones, as the leg and arm bones,
and the spinal bone (see Foes. (ἔς. Hipp.); now
these (which are all that are left), in the dry climate
of the East, continue for a long time uncorrupted.

18, 19. τίσι---ἀπιστίαν. Compare supra, ver. 11.
The ὦμοσε may denote solemn asseveration rather
than swearing properly so called. See the note supra,
ver. 11. The true force of ἀπειθ. is clear from what
has been said of ἀπιστία. Kai, ‘and (so).” See
Abr.and Heinr. Not therefore, as Mich. and others
render. The ἠδυνήθσαν is ill interpreted by Abresch
and others would not. And on βλέπομεν too many
refinements have been sought. It is sufficient to
take this and the ἤδυν. populariter (so Grot., Carpz.,
and Ernesti), 1. 6. ‘* we see by the story and the
event ; 64. 4. ‘‘ we are authorized to infer from the
story and the event, that the reason why they could
not enter, was their unbelief.”

CHAP. IV.

Ver. 1. The Apostle now treats the history adle-
gorically ; applying what he has said to Christians ;
4. d«‘* For we have a Divine promise like that the
the Israelites received, though far greater and more
precious.” (Dindorf and Rosenm.) SoTheophyl. :

HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 421

Ἐνταῦθα x ἀπόδοσις τοῦ, "Ev τῷ λέγεσθαι, Σήμερον ἐὰν
τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε, καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς. Φοβηθώμεν, &c.
Τὺ δὲ, οὖν, ἐτέθη διὰ τὸ διὰ μικροῦ ἀποδεδόσθαι τὸν λόγον,
ἐπαναλήψεως γενομένης.

The καταλειπομένης ἐπαγγελίας are regarded by
Rosenm. as genitives of consequence. It is of more
importance to consider the sense, which is explained
by some (as Strigil, Flac., Hyperius, Est., Limb.,
and Carpz.) spretd promissione: by others (as Wolf,
Pisc., Bengel, Mich., Abresch, &c.) redicta et adhuc
residua ; which is more agreeable to the context, and
is confirmed by Wetstein’s examples. Ὑστερεῖν pro-
perly signifies to come too late, and consequently to
miss of any thing, and dose it. The δοκῇ has little
meaning, but great elegance. On this kind of ple-
onasm see Dind. ‘Theoph. says the Apostle uses it
ἱλαρώτερον καὶ ἀνεπαχθέστερον τὸν λόγον ποιῶν.

1. φοβήθωμεν denotes not so much fear as the conse-
quent on it, anxiety, solicitude, and great circum-
spection. So Theodoret explains it: σπουδάσωμεν.
It is singular that the Commentators, who treat with
needless minuteness on the sense, should not have
cited a kindred passage at Phil. 2, 13. ‘* work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

The nature of this promise and the rest prepared
is explained in the following verses.

2. Kal yap εὐηγγελισμένοι, καθάπερ κακεῖνοι, 1. 6.
literally, ‘* for we are evangelized (or, “ have an εὖ-
αγγέλιον or offer made to us) as well as they; as to
them was held out Palestine, the promised land; so
to us is held out the spiritual Palestine, another
country, even a heavenly. ‘This use of the passive
is Hellenistical.* And that of εὐαγγελίϑειν, though

* On which Grot. annotates thus; ‘ Constructio Graca, qualis
Mat. 11, 5. Lue, 7, 22. que Passivurn persone facit etiam ex Activo
Dativum regente; idque hic eo facilius procedit, quod Activum
εὐαγγελίξω non tantum cum Dativo, ut Luc. 1, 19. and 2, 10. sed
et cum accusativo, construitur, ut Lue. 3, 18.” See also Abresch,
who cites some examples from the Fathers, especially of evayy.
with an accusative.

4.22 HEBREWS, CHAP. IY.

not at variance with the sense of the term, which
may signify a promise of good as wellas an announce-
ment of good, is peculiar to the Apostle.* On the
nature of the promises made to the Israelites the
earlier and the later modern Commentators are at
issue. See Pole’s Syn. and Dind.; for into so exten-
sive a subject I cannot enter.

The λόγος ἀκοῆς is a Hebraism for λόγος ἀκουόμιενος :
for (as Rosenm. observes) 127 may mean promise,
i.e. of the promised land; an εὐαγγέλιον to wander-
ers on the trackless sandy desert.

Ὡς, μὴ συγκεκραμένος TH πίστει τοῖς ἀκούσασιν. There
is some variation in the reading of this passage, and
difference of opinion thereupon. (See Dindorf.)
Both seem to have arisen from the difficulty found
in tracing the metaphor. The best Critics seem
agreed that the common reading is to be retained;
and that it contains an allusion to the digestion of
food, its concoction, and conversion to chyle and
nourishment.

Τοῖς ἀκούσασιν is for ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων.

8. εἰσερχόμεθα γὰρ εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστεύ-
σαντες.

The present is said to be here put for the future, or pro omni tem-
pore. The sense may be expressed thus : ‘* we who believe are to enter
into (the enjoyment of) that rest.” The οἱ πιστευσ. is emphati-
cal; q.d. we alone. Τὴν κατάπαυσιν, “ the rest (promised by
God),” i. 6. the felicity ; for rest is a very fit image of happiness ;
and especially considering its) primary application to the possession
of the promised land; since to fatigued way-farers “ a blink of rest
would be a sweet enjoyment,” to use the words of the Scottish ‘Theo-
critus.

But there are many difficulties, and consequently a variety of
jarring opinions concerning the sense of the whole passage from
ver. 3—10., which the limited nature of my work will not allow
me to detail. I must refer the reader to Pole, Wolf, and Dindorf.

* Abresch, Carpzov, and Dind., however, think evayy. has here
simply the sense of κηρύσσειν, “ we were preached to.” But Ernesti,
Morus, Rosenm., and Jaspis rightly insist on the notion of promise,
which is maintained by all the earlier moderns, and is supported by
the antients.. So Theophyl.: Ὅρα δὲ πῶς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν μὲν εὐαγγελισ-
μὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς ἀληθινῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπόσχεσιν. See also

Chrys. and Theodoret.

HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 4.23

The structure and air of the passage is in the highest degree in-
volved, and perfectly in the Jewish style. The difficulty turns very
much on the interpretation of the κατάπαυσιν Θεοῦ, which the best
modern Commentators interpret, “a happiness similar to that
which God enjoys.” See Grot., Whitby, and Dindorf. They ad-
duce many similar expressions from Philo, After κατάπαυσιν μου
Rosenm. and Dindorf supply δι’ ἀπιστίαν, which completes the
sense, but may be dispensed with; nor does it form any regular
ellipsis. The words καίτοι -- γενηθέντων they connect with the
former part of the verse; and rendering καίτοι et quidem, thus
translate the clause; ‘* Requiem intelligo ab omnibus operibus a
mundo condito (inter homines) peractis,” i. e. that complete feli-
city which men shall enjoy after the accomplishment of the business
of this life. This (I confess) appears a somewhat harsh interpre-
tation: but the whole is so perplexed that we have only a choice of
difficulties ; and perhaps the method in question involves the fewest.
Dind. and Rosenm. cite a passage from Primasius on this Epistle,
p. 507., which is as follows: “ Intelligitur regnum ceeleste 8, felici-
tatem eternam, ad quam quos pervenire contigerit planissimé re-
quieturi sint a laboribus et zrumnis hujus seculi, non tantuma
molestiis longi itineris, ut olim Israelite; unde illa felicitas, que
credentibus promissa sit, non est similis ei, qua Israelite fruiti
essent, sed ei qua Deus ipse fruatur, maxima et perfectissima.”
Towards the illustration of the sense of the whole passage the fol-
lowing observation of Theophy]l. seems to me very important :
Βούλεται δεῖξαι τρεῖς καταπαύσεις KexAnpevas ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ Kat
πρώτην μὲν τὴν ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν, ἐν ἡ τὴν κτίσιν πεπλήρωκεν ὁ Θεός"

εὐτέραν δὲ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὴν γῆν" τρίτην δὲ γε τὴν βασιλείαν
τῶν οὐρανῶν᾽ κατασκευάξει δὲ τὴν ταύτης ἀπόδειξιν ἀπὸ τῆς προφη-
τικῆς μαρτυρίας" εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἀληθῶς, φησιν, ἐστὶν ἑτέρα κατάπαυσις,
τί δήποτε τοῖς τὴν δευτέραν δεξαμένοις και παρεγγυᾷ μὴ σκληρύναι
τὰς καρδίας; καὶ ἀπειλεῖ τιμωρίαν, καὶ τῶν τῆς δευτέρας καταπαύσεως
καταπεφρονηκότων ποιεῖται τὴν μνήμην ; κατὰ τάξιν δὲ ταύτας
τίθησι, καὶ πρώτην μὲν τὴν τῆς ἑβδόμης ἡμέρας. Nor can I omit
the following of Theophyl.: Δοκεῖ ἀνακόλουθος εἶναι ὁ λόγος, οὐκ
ἔστι δέ; ἀλλὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχει τις εἰπεῖν, ὅτι Δαβὶδ wept
τῆς καταπαύσεως λέγει τῆς τοῦ σαββάτου" πῶς γὰρ, ἥτις πάλαι γεγέ-
νητο, καὶ ὅτε κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς ὁ κόσμος τὴν σύστασιν ἔλαβεν ; ἀλλὰ δῆλον
ὅτι περὶ ἀλλῆς τινὸς λέγει ὁ Δαβὶδ καταπαύσεως, τῆς εἰς τοὺς οὐρα-
vous εἰσελεύσεως" ἥτις καὶ εἰς τὸν μέλλοντα ἐγκέκλιται; ὡς ὀφειλόν-
των δηλαδή τινων μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσελθεῖν᾽ Καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ σάββατον
κατάπαυσις λέγεται παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκώλυσε κατάπαυσιν
μετὰ ταῦτα λεχθῆναι καὶ τὴν εἰς τὴν γὴν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας εἴσοδον"
οὕτως οὐδὲ νῦν κωλύει μετὰ ταύτην πάλιν κατάπαυσιν κληθῆναι τὴν
μέλλουσαν, τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν φημι βασιλείαν, εἰς ἣν οἱ ἀπιστήσαντες
οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται. The reader may also, with advantage, consult a
useful sketch of the argumentation from ver. 3. to 10., as laid down
by Mr. Slade, who (I think) very well represents the Apostle’s mean-
ing: but how to adjust the expressions to that and such other sche-
mata, “hic labor, hoc opusest.” In truth, the difficulties cannot be

424 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV.

satisfactorily solved, without entering into such a length as to require
a pamphlet rather than a note.

4. εἴρηκε---οὑτοῦ, i.e. ““ there is mention made in
Scripture of a rest of God.’ That a rest is also
promised to men, he will at ver. 5. deduce from the
other above mentioned place. (Rosenm.) [Που, i. 6.
Gen. 2,2. This vague mode of citation was com-
mon in that age, and sufficed for those who were so
thoroughly conversant in Scripture. The best Com-
mentators, as Carpz. and Rosenm., think that the
Apostle means to represent this rest of God as an
image of the height of future felicity ; and they ad-
duce several passages of Philo which strongly coun-
tenance this interpretation,

coe οὐκ τούτω---κατάπαυσίν μου, “ From this un-
derstand that to men also is promised this rest,
namely, the rest of God.” For in that Psalm men-
tion is made of men who shall enter that rest, or not
enter it. ‘The nervus probationis is in ἐλεύσονται ;
for this belongs to men. (Rosenm.)

6. ἐπεὶ οὖν---αὐτὴν, “Since therefore -it follows
from thence, that certain are to enter this place of
rest,” i.e. that all have access to it; for those only
are excluded who believe not. ᾿Απολείπεται, at 1S

collected, it follows.” ‘The οἱ πρότερον εὐαγγελισθέν-
τες are those who had gone out from Egypt, and to
whom this rest was promised, but under condition of
faith and obedience. See supra, ver. 2 and 3. (Ro-
senm.) The difficulty here is much increased by the
omission, in several instances, of the conclusion,
which follows from the premises, and which is not
educed till ver. 9.

7. THAW τινὰ ὁρίξει ἡμέραν, &e. * And again he
defines and appoints a certain time, a to-day,” i. e.
he defines and mentions another time by the same
name fo- -day, at which they were to enter into this
rest; saying, “by David, after such a time as we have
before mentioned, namely, forty years.” Καθὼς εἴρη-
Tou, ** aS Was las mentioned,” namely, c. 5, 7 and

HEBREWS, CHAP. Iv. 45

8. Now David lived long after the promise had
been made to the Jews in the desert; and yet he
makes mention of a certain rest yet to be expected.
Therefore it cannot be objected, that after that rest
promised to the Israelites no other is to be expected.
It is rather to be collected, that besides that rest to
which Joshua had brought the people, another is
held out, of which all in the age of David might be
partakers who should obey the Divine command-
ments. (Rosenm.)

8. εἰ γὰρ---μέρας, * For if Joshua had brought
them to that rest (i. e. true and stable one), God
would not have spoken, by David, of another time
hereafter, from which we are to beware lest we be
excluded.” Karéraveev. For the pluperfect sub-
junctive, and to be taken in a hiphil sense, i. e.
‘“caused to rest.’? Now the rest to which Joshua
brought them was not the true, stable, and perfect
one. See Hebr. 13, 14. (Rosenm.) The other time
is the age of the Gospel and the Giver of it, Christ.
See Matt. 11, 28 and 29.

On the three preceding verses Theophyl. annotates thus: To
ef ~ , ͵ ef Ν᾽ ~ \ ε - - 9 > ,
ὅλον τοῦτο σπεύδει δείξαι, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς μὲν ὁ τοῦ Ναυῆ, οὐκ ἠδυνήθη
εἰσαγαγεῖν εἰς ταύτην τὴν κατάπαυσιν; περὶ ἧς καὶ τῷ Δαβὶδ ὁ λόγος,
ΜῈ Ὁ Ὁ ἘΣ > \ δ ἃ Ἐν \ Cae Cay d ε \ \
καὶ ἡμῖν viv. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐκεῖνος μὲν οὐκ εἰσήγαγεν, ὁ δὲ Δαβὶὲδ
- ie ‘ ~
λέγει πάλιν μὲν τοσαῦτα ἔτη, Μὴ σκληρύνητε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ws
οἱ πατέρες οἱ δὶα τὴν ἀπιστίαν μὴ εἰσελθόντες, καὶ δίδωσιν ἡμῖν νοεῖν
ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου, ὅτι ἐὰν πιστεύωμεν, εἰσελευσόμεθα, δῆλον ὅτι ἡ κατά-
παύυσις αὕτη μέλλουσά ἐστι, καὶ περιμένει ἡμᾶς" περὶ γὰρ τῆς Παλαισ-
, Ἃ) a ‘ ~
τίνης οὐκ ἐπηγγέλλετο δήπου 6 Δαβίδ' ταύτην yap κατεῖχον τότε,
> > ? δὲ ~ ε ὃ , el ‘ 5) ee λῇ kt = vA is
ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῆς ἑβδόμης αὕτη yap ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἦν. ρα οὖν
, ~ ~ s Ν
τρίτη τὶς ἐστιν, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν; εἰς ἣν ὁ ἁληθινὸς εἰσάγει
‘Inaots, καὶ ἡ eis αὐτὸν πίστις.

9. ἄρα ἀπολείπεται--- Θεοῦ, “so then there remain-
eth a rest for the people of God.” By rest is meant
perfect, real happiness. By the people of God are
meant all true Christians, or those who should
become so. The word σαββατισμὸς properly signi-
fies, a keeping of the Sabbath by holy rest, and
worship of God. But it is here used to denote that
rest and felicity in heaven, that eternal sabbath,

4.26 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV.

which God’s faithful servants will enjoy.* Exam-
ples from Philo are adduced by Carpz. and others of
a use of σάββατον in the metaphorical sense of a
serene and quiet life. Striking, indeed, in many
respects, are the coincidences between the modes of
thought and expression of that spiritual Jew, and
of the Apostle.

10. It is here observed by Theophyl.: "Epuyvyeces
πῶς σαββατισμὸν ὠνόμασε τὴν τοιαύτην κατάπαυσιν"
δίοτι, KC.

10. 6 γὰρ εἰσελθὼν---ὁ Θεύς, “ For he who hath
come unto the rest (of God), he also himself resteth
from his works, as God from his,”’ i. e. he who attains
to that felicity similar to the Divine, will enjoy the
most pure and perfect pleasure. ‘The whole passage
is allegorical. For the history is applied to a thing, in
many respects indeed different, though in some things
aptly corresponding to that with which it is com-.
pared. The sense, allegorically expressed, will be as
follows: ‘‘ God resteth; to his people is promised
rest; the Israelites have not attained to rest, by
reason of their unbelief; but by believing they will
enjoy this rest.” Expressed in the natural way, it
will be this: ““ God enjoys supreme felicity ; to men
also will God impart this; the Israelites, by
reason of their unbelief, have not been made par-
takers of this felicity; but by believing, they will
τι. (Rosenm.)

11. σπουδάσωμεν---κατάπαυσιν. On the preceding
allegorical application the Apostle engrafts an exhor-
tation (which is also a conclusion from it) to strive
after the attainment of that rest, namely, Heaven,
(and not, as Pisc. explains, the attaining unto obedi-
ence to Christ). It is observed by Theophyl., that
σπουδ. is used, in order to show that not faith of itself
suffices to bring us thither, but it must be accompa-
nied with a virtuous life. ‘The Commentators have

* So Theophyl.: Οὐκ εἶπε, κατάπαυσις, ἀλλὰ σαββατισμὸς, τὸ
οἰκεῖον ὄνομα θεὶς, καὶ ᾧ ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐπέτρεχον. Οὕτω δὲ καλεῖ τὴν
βασιλείειν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 427

~ not observed that the εἰσελθεῖν εἰς is used with allusion
to the sense crouched under these words, namely,
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.

11. ἵνα μὴ ἐν αὐτῷ---ἀπειθίας. “The construction
here is dubious. Some early moderns, and Abresch,
take it for ἵνα μὴ τῇ αὐτῇ τις ἐμπέσει ὑποδεδειγμένῃ
ἀπειθείᾳ. Which is the most obvious construction,
and in a Classical writer would be the true one; but
the character of the Apostle’s style, being so very
different, alters the case. The best Critics, from
Grot. to Dindorf and Rosenm., have seen that πάσῃ
must be taken absolutely, with reference to 3, 17.;
though here in a figurative sense. And the ἐν must
be considered as put for dia, by, after. An Hypal-
lage for τῇ ἀπειθείᾳ τῇ ἐν ὑποδείγματι, ‘Ne quis ves-
tram incidit in inobedientiam talem qualis illi exem-
plar dedere. See Num. 14. And this is supported
by the authority of the antient Commentators.
Ὑπόδειγμια is for παράδειγμια, of which Abr. and Dind,
adduce examples; as Eph. Syr. 3, 192., vmod. καὶ τύ-
πον, and 289., rod. ἁμαρτιῶν, and 247., ὑποῦ. ἀπιστίας.
I would compare Juv. Sat. 10, 167. Ut pueris pla-
ceas et declamatio fias! ‘* To point a moral, and adorn
a tale.”

12. Sav γὰρ ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐνεργής.

By the λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the best Commentators are agreed is
meant the language of God in Scripture, or in the Gospel, whether
in its promises, or threatenings, which latter are had especially in
mind. (Compare Ps. 95.) The ay is explained by the ἐνεργὴν ;
and both signify active, efficacious, what exerts its power. Then the
force of the Divine threats, when unheeded, are depicted by a most
sublime and beautiful image derived from that which in things cor-
poreal is thought the most cutting, namely, a μάχαιρα δίστομος (As
Apoc. 1, 16.), nv 5» 25n; a sword being always a symbol of
vengeance, Τομώτερος. This is explained by the Gloss. τμητικώτε-
pos. And so Hesych. Examples are adduced by Wets. from Soph.,
Plato, &c., and among the rest Phocyl. 119., ὅπλον τοι λόγος ἀνδρ

τιμώτερον ἐστι σιδήρου. The word τομαῖος also occurs in Aschyl
and Eurip.

12. διϊκνούμιενος.---μιυελών. Wets. compares Aischyl.
Theb. 515., ἰκνεῖται λόγος διὰ στήθεων. And Dind.,
Justin Mart., λόγου δυαμένου εἰς ψυχὴν διϊκνουμένης.
On the exact force of the metaphor in ἄχρι---πνεύ-

4:28 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV.

ματος, Commentators are not agreed. It seems not
necessary to refine, but, with Abr., Dindorf, &c.,
regard the πνεῦμα and ψυχὴν (in this use) as a popu-
lar expression denoting the mind, thoughts, and
feelings. And pepiopod may be taken simply to sig-
nify the inmost part ; since, in an equal division of
any thing, the place of cutting, or dividing, will be
at the inmost part. With respect to the ἁνμῶν τε καὶ
μυελῶν, Grot. observes: “ Per translationem ea que
sunt corporis, applicat animo.” And Chrys., The-
ophyl., Theodoret, Isid. Pel. Ep. 1, 94., and Hamm.,
rightly recognise an allusion to the Priests (in sancti-
fication) cutting the victim down the back-bone, so as
to search every bone and part, that all might be
found pure before the sacrifice. At the same time,
it is not improbable (though the Commentators do
not notice it) that there may be an allusion to that
most horrible exercise of the μάχαιρα δίστομος, by
which (as we find from the Classical writers) a man
was sometimes absolutely cut in two down the back-
bone. The ἁρμῶν are very applicable to the com-
missurce by which the ribs are fastened to the back-
bone.

The next words, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν
καρδίας, are, in some measure, exegetical, and show
whither the preceding comparison tended. The
sense is, that the word of God (or God by his word),
is a discerner and trier of the thoughts and feelings
of the heart (the ἔνθυμι καὶ ἐνν. being ἃ popular ex-
pression). The application is obvious. See the
Commentators. It is singular that they should not
have seen that the Apostle had in mind Ps. 7, 9.
(Theodot.) éracris καρδιών καὶ νεφρῶν ὁ Θεὸς. The
whole is well paraphrased by Jaspis thus: “ Mine
Dei non in irritum cadent; non est vana et sine viri-
bus ejus ira; mine Dei neglecte acerbissimé pun-
gunt et gravissimé vulnerant animum, animi corpo-
risque discidium inducere valent, non solum illis
hominum facta puniuntur, sed etiam consilia in in-
timis pectoris humani latebris ac recessibus abdita.”

HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. 4.29

/ 3 Ἁ e /
13. καὶ οὐκ ἔστι κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἔνωπίιον αὐτου.

By the αὐτοῦ is meant God, not the antecedent ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
The general sense of the words is sufficiently clear; but on the
mode of eliciting that sense from them Commentators are not
agreed. Some, as Camer. and Irhoven, recognise an agonistical
metaphor. But this is very harsh. The most favourite opinion for
the last century is that of Erasm., that as τραχηλίξειν signifies to
twist back the neck, so there may be an allusion to the antient cus-
tom, explained by Periz. on A¢lian V. H. 12, 58., by which criminals
proceeding: to execution had their heads drawn forcibly backward,
in order to bring their countenances the more under the gaze of the
multitude. But this seems very far-fetched, and it is not probable
such a circumstance would have been alluded to by the Apostle.
Upon the whole, I see no opinion so little liable to objection as that
of Chrys. and the other antients, and, of the moderns, Grot. Beza,
Atling, Hamm., Gatak., Braun., Beausob., Doddr.; Harwood, &c.,
that the ἀφανὴς signifies καλύμμενα, tedavepwpéva, with an allusion
to the τραχήλισμος, or cutting down of the τράχηλος, or back-bone,
Just before adverted toin ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ἁρμῶν τε Kaluved@y. And,
although it is objected, that there is no authority for this significa-
tion, yet that is no more than may be said of many other idioms
of the Apostle, no doubt, often Cilicisms, or provincial phrases, and
therefore not found in the Classical writers ; though likely enough
to be known by Chrys., who was born and lived not many miles
from Cilicia, and whose authority, in such matters, ought to carry
the greatest weight.

13. πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν 6 Adyés. Some take the λόγος as
sermo ; others (like the Hebr. 127) to denote nego-
tium, res. And so Ern. and Rosenm. But this
seems very frigid. So that (especially on account of
the πρὸς) I prefer the interpretation of Chrys., The-
ophyl,, Gicumen., Syr., Wolf, Loesn., Abr., Dind.,
and others, account, ᾧ μέλλομεν δοῦναι τοὺς λόγους καὶ
τὰς εὐθύνας τών merpaypevov. See Luke 16, 2., Rom.
14, 12., Hebr. 13, 17., 1. Pet., 4, 5., 1-Cor., 4. 5.,
2 Cor. 9, 10.

14. ἔχοντες obv—@eov. The οὖν 15 resumptive; for
after the digression on the Jews in the desert, the
Apostle returns to the High Priest mentioned at 3,
1., and shows that Jesus Christ is far superior to the
High Priests of the Old Testament (Rosenm.), q. d.
** We, too, have a High Priest, and one greater, and
who hath passed to the heavens (and not merely, as
the High Priests of the Old Testament, to the Sanc-

430 HEBREWS, CHAP. IV.

tum Sanctorum), even Christ Jesus. Having, then,
such an one, let us hold fast by our covenant,” &c.
These two sentences are blended into one.

14. διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, i. 6. literally, “ hath
passed through the heavens (so as to attain the high-
est, the seat of Divine majesty).” ‘There is (I think
rightly) thought by Carpz. to be an allusion to the
passing of the High Priest every year, εἰς μεσαίτατον
τὸν νεὸν (of which we read in Philo), and, as he also
says, through four porticos, which Joseph. and the
Rabbins say represented the heavens. ‘Thus all is
clear. By this ‘‘ passing to the highest heavens” it is
manifestly declared, that the work of expiation is
completed, and an access obtained to approach God
in prayer, with a hope of acceptance. ‘Tov υἱὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ, “‘ even the Son of God himself, not, like Aaron
or Joshua, and the High Priests, a minister of God.”
Keardpev τῆς ὁμολογίας. I would not understand
thus (with many Commentators), cf the profession of
faith in the Priesthood, but take ὁμολ. in the same
manner as at 3, 1., of the Christian covenant, or
rather our covenanted faith in the Christian religion.

15. οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν---ἁμαρτίας. This is meant to
further show the superiority of the Christian High
Priest to that of the Mosaic Dispensation. In this
comparison I cannot, however, think (with Abr. and
Jaspis) that there is an allusion to the unfeeling
pride of the Jewish High Priests; that were too
frigid. Grot., and the best Critics, take the duvap.
as referred, ad effectum ; as supra, 2,18. The ac.
they interpret adversities, especially calamities suf-.
fered for religion’s sake; and the rere. they render,
ςς exercised with these afflictions,” &c. A mode of
interpretation supported by the authority of the
antient Greek Commentators. But thus the words
χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας will have a very frigid sense, i.e.
“ without giving way under his afflictions.” I must,
therefore, prefer the most extensive sense the word
will bear, and understand it of those various frailties
and weaknesses of our nature which expose us to

HEBREWS, CHAP. IV. V. 431

numerous temptations, either to abandon religion, or
not to fulfil its injunctions. ‘Though, doubtless, the
Apostle had in view especially the temptations to
abandon the religion, from the afflictions which its
profession then brought with it.

The true sense of this whole verse has been ex-
cellently laid down in an admirable Sermon of Dr.
Blair; Vol: 2:, ps 117.

16. προσερχώμεθα οὖν---βοήθειαν, “having such a
High Priest, and Mediator, let us with good courage
approach (with our prayers) to the throne of grace”
(i. 6. of a gracious God). Some think there is here
an allusion to the Jewish notion of God having two
thrones, one of mercy, another of judgment. But
this seems frigid and far-fetched. Tlapéycias,
courage, confidence ; as often inthe New Testament.
Εὕρωμεν, obtain. "Ἐλεον is explained by the Philolo-
gists auxilium. If that be the sense, ἔλεον καὶ χάριν
may be an hendiadis. It is to be observed, that all
the gracious dispensations of God towards men are,
in the language of Scripture, called his mercies, to
hint to us our own unworthiness, and encourage a
spirit of humility. :

16. εἰς εὔκαιρον. βοήθειαν seems to be put for εἰς
βοήθειαν ἡμῶν ἐν καιρῷ, i. e. in the hour of affliction,
trial, and temptation.

CHAP. V.

The Apostle proceeds now to show the superiority
of the New to the Old Testament; and he begins
by first comparing the Priesthood, thus setting forth
the great superiority of Christ. As, however, it
might be objected, that many things were found in
the High Priests that were not in Christ (for he was
neither of the Priestly state, nor a Priest in any way,
nor chosen of men, nor had any of the outward ap-
pearance or pomp of a Priest, but every thing in him
was spiritual); the Apostle therefore states what

432 HEBREWS, CHAP. V.

Christ really had in common with the other High
Priests, and then what were the points of superiority.
For when it can be shown that any one has certain
things in common with others, and in other things
exceeds them, then does his superiority appear.
(Theophyl.)

Ver. 1. πᾶς yap ἀρχιερεὺς---ὡμαρτιῶν. The Apos-
tle proceeds to prove the superiority of Christ’s
Priesthood over that of Aaron, by showing that he
hath all the qualities requisite in a High Priest, and
that in the highest degree. [las—capapriay, ‘* Every
High Priest taken, selected, and called from men is
appointed (such) for (the welfare of) men, in respect
to observances towards God, that he may offer gifts
and sacrifices for (their) sins. Aap. is, like the
Hebr. mm in Num. 25, 4., used in the sense segre-
gare. Αἱ τὰ must be understood κατὰ and πράγ-
ματα. Ἰροσφέρειν is a sacrificial term, signifying to
bring to the altar ; as Matt. 5, 23. Joh. 16,2. Acts
7, 42. &c. where see the notes. “The δώρα and θυσίας
are general terms, comprehending sacrifices of ever
kind. The former occurs in Matt. 5, 23. and Mark
1, 44., and is used of Holocausts in Levit. 4, 3.
[Some think δῶρα signifies spontaneous offerings ;
and θυσ. the sacrifices directed by the law. But it
would (perhaps) be difficult to establish this distinc-
tion. Ed.] Since, therefore, every High Priest is
appointed, not for his own sake, but for that of other
men, this holds good also of Christ. (Rosenm.)

Q, μετριοποιθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι Kal πλανωμέ-
νοις. On the sense of μετριοπαθεῖν the Commentators
are at issue. ‘The best founded opinion seems to be,
that it here signifies ‘‘ to carry oneself with modera-
tion, lenity, and mercy, to hold in the passions with
such an even hand as not to give way to excess in
anger, or any of the violent feelings, and conse-
quently, bear with the failings of other men.” Ex-
amples of this signification are adduced by the Phi-
lological Commentators from Josephus and other
writers.

HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 433

\ δ
' Avyapevos is taken by Jaspis for ἵνα δύνηται, as ex-
pressing the cause why, &c. Compare 2,18. Grot.,
Beza, and Owen think δυνάμενος refers ad effectum ;
as supra, 2, 18. and 4, 15.; q.d. “qui aptus, idoneus,
et prosperus sit.”

2. ἀγνοοῦσι kal πλανωμένοις. Some explain this,

those who sin through inadvertence, forgetfulness,
or sudden impulse, and not deliberately: in which
cases the High Priest was allowed to show clemency.
Others take the ἀγν. of vice or sin, with an adjunct
notion of ignorance. And this use is not unfrequent
in the Classical writers. But the former interpreta-
tion (which is espoused by the antient Commenta-
tors) seems more agreeable to the context. ᾿Επεὶ----
ἀσθενείαν. ‘Che metaphor in περικεῖται is usually ex-
plained ‘‘ obnoxious est infirmitati, undique premi-
tur.” But, like most metaphors taken from dress
(see Eph. 6, 13. and Col. 3, 12.) it seems to import
what is habitual. By the ἀσθ. must be understood,
not misery (as Pierce and others explain), but
frailty, liability to sin. And Dindorf cites Eph.
Syr. 3. ἐγὼ ἀσώματος εἰμὶ, καὶ οὐ περίκειμα ἀσθενείαν.
Cicumen. explains it ἁμαρτίαν. But this cannot so
well be admitted.

8. καὶ διὰ ταύτην---ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, ‘* And for this
frailty, and the sin arising from it, he is bound to offer
up, as for the sins of the people, so also for his own
sins.” On the particulars of both kinds of sacrifices,
see Levit. 4, 9 and 16. Some carry the points of
comparison in this parallel too far, and refine too
much. Rosenm. observes, that it must not be ex-
tended ultra tertium comparationis. The similitude
(he adds) is this: ‘*A human Priest himself falls
into sin; therefore he exercises lenity towards those
who sin. Christ was afflicted ; therefore he is ever
ready to assist the afflicted.” Whence the Apostle
adds, c. 4,15. χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. ‘To the latter part of
this position I cannot assent. See the note supra,
4,15. It is (1 apprehend) meant, that as Christ ex-
perimentally knows all the infirmities and liabilities

VOL, VIII. QF ͵

484 HEBREWS, CHAP. V.

to temptation of our nature, so he is enabled and
fitted to act as our Judge.

4. καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτώ --- "Δαρών. A new argument,
namely, that Christ may justly be accounted a High
Priest, though not of the tribe of Levi. Τιμὴ de-
notes any public office, whether civil or ecclesiasti-
eal, and though applicable to the Priesthood in ge-
neral, yet was especially so to the High Priesthood,
which among the Jews (as a remnant of antient the-
ocracy) carried with it dignity and splendour almost
regal. Thus at the next verse the τιμὴ is called δόξα.
(Rosenm.)
᾿ς 5, 6. οὕτω καὶ----γεγέννηκά σε. At ὁ λαλήσας repeat
ἐδόξασε from the preceding clause. It is observed
by Theophyl., that this is proved from the constant
language of Scripture; as Joh. 8. ἀπεσταλὴν παρὰ
τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ am’ ἑμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλήλυθα. Now Christ
did not act as those who snatch at honours, like
Korah and his conspirators. Christ’s Pontifical
office, too, was far superior to that under the law,
inasmuch as he was appointed to it by the immediate
investment of heaven, in virtue of his relation to God
as Son; and therefore was High Priest in a far more
elevated, nay even august sense; as is proved and
illustrated from Ps. 2., and then from Ps. 110, 4,
where ἱερεὺς is (as often) put for ’Apyiep.; in which
case the term is used κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν.

The κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, as answering to the Hebrew
Wrist Υν. signifies καθάπερ, κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίοτητα ; AS
Macc. 9, 18. Now Christ is a High Priest like
Melchisedec; therefore there was no ~ need that he
should be born of the tribe of Levi. ‘This is further
urged infra, 6, 20. and c.'7. The Apostle now ex-
plains 1 in what ‘Jesus Christ, our High Priest, profits
us. (Rosenm.) Having himself experienced the
weaknesses, trials, and tribulations of human nature,
he can have a fellow feeling with his brethren who
are exposed to the same trials.

7. The Apostle (as Theodoret observes) proceeds
to show that our Lord, except sin, bore all the παθή-

NEBREWS, CHAP. V. 435

para of human nature. ‘Ev ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς
αὐτοῦ, “ at the time when he lived as a man among
men.” ‘Hu. is often simply for ¢éme. ‘The mention
of σαρκὸς carries with it an adjunct notion of weak-
ness and affliction. ‘Ixerypias (on which see Ernesti)
is a stronger term than δεήσεις, which is a general
one to denote entreaty of every kind. It usually
happens that the stronger term is introduced Jast ;
of which the Commentators adduce examples. ‘The
words μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων are by some
thought to refer to the Passion, at which it is said,
ἐκτενέστερον προτηύχετο. By others, to his exclama-
tion on the cross. See Hildebr. de lacrymis Christi
and Braun ad ἢ. 1. Rosenm. rightly (I think) refers
it to both. The θανάτου is by Hyperius and Abresch
understood of the fear of death.

On the sense of εἰσακουσθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας there has been
no little difference of opinion. ‘This has partly arisen from the ex
tensive siynification of εὐλαβ. which often denotes reverentia,
pietas ; and so it has been taken by the antients and many moderns,
as Flaccius, Est., &e. So the Vulg. ‘* pro sua reverentid.”” Compare
Joh. 9, 31. And ἀπὸ is often used in the sense of ob, pre, and per.
This interpretation, however, is scarcely permitted by the context,
and is liable to other objections: so that I prefer that of Ernesti,
Abr., Wets., Dindorf, and Rosenm., whith indeed had been before
brought forward by Beza, Grot., and Hamm., and adopted by our
English Translators, and after them by Doddr. and Mackn., and
ably maintained by Whitby, namely, “ ereptus et liberatus est ab eo
timore.” This indeed is the proper, and not unfrequent, significa-
tion of εὐλαβεία. See Josh. 22, 24. and Acts 23,10. And so
Diphil, cited by Beza; θνητὸς πεφυκὼς μὴ εὐλαβοῦ τεθηκέναι. See
also a cloud of examples in Wets. ‘Thus the εἰσακουσθεὶς will bea
vox pregnans, “ signifying, ‘‘ was heard, and delivered from;”
many examples of which from the Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are
adduced by Dind. and the authors referred to. Abr. compares Job
35. yt praise my xd, “and he doth not so hear him as to
deliver him from the vehemence of his affliction.” This interpreta-
tion, too, is required by the context, as Cameron and others have
shown. Nor is the sense, if properly explained and understood,
liable to any objection. On which see Abr. and Wets.*

* Which Jatter Commentator observes: ‘‘ Vocavit εὐλαβείαν,
quam, si de alio quam de filio Dei loqueretur, dixisset δέος; ταρα-
χὴν, δειλίαν, ἀγωνίαν. Hic metus, et preces, et precum exauditio
describuntur Matth. 26. 36—42. Luc. 23, 41—45. Metus ille non
erat τοῦ πνεύματος, sed τῆς ψυχῆς, ex natura humana et infirmo
corpore consequens.” ’

γώ

480 HEBREWS, CHAP. V.

8. καίπερ ὧν---ὁπακοὴν. Many eminent modern
Commentators regard this verse as parenthetical, and
serving to restrict the sentiment couched in the pre-
ceding. See Abr., Heinr., and Dindorf. Καίπερ
ὧν υἱὸς, “ although he were a Son.” Ἔμαθεν---ὗπα-
κοήν. These words are not to be understood as im-
porting that he needed to learn that obedience; but
the meaning is, as the best moderns are agreed,
discere debuit, he had to learn; and the words are to
be taken populariter. Thus, Dind. observes, when
we familiarly say, ‘‘ men learn obedience,” we only
mean, that they do not wish to obey, and yet at
length learn to do so. See Pisc. in loc. Now the
obedience of Christ consisted in his accomplishment
of all that the Father had enjoined, even to the suf-
fering of death, for the expiation of the sins of men.

On the καίπερ Dindorf remarks: “ Vulgo pater
filium tractat amanter, nec cogit eum patiendo obe-
dire ; sed Deus filium tractat duriter, filium sibi ca-
rissimum.” See Pierceand Storr. In the ἔμαθεν ag’
ὧν ἔπαθεν, Grot. and others observe, there is a paro-
nomasia, and an allusion to the Greek proverb: za-
θήματα, μαθήματα. So Croesus in Herod. 1, 107. τὰ
δὲ μοι παθήματα τὰ ἔοντα ἀχάριστα, μαθήματα γενόνεε.

9. καὶ τελειωβθεὶς----σωτηρίας αἰωνίου. The τελειω-
θεὶς must be understood as the τελειώσαι διὰ παθημά-
των at 2, 10. The term is used sometimes in this
Epistle in the sense to be brought to, and to arrive at
the height of felicity and glory. This is not (as some
think) an agenistical allusion, but rather a sacerdotal
one; though even ¢hat is not well established. In-
deed it is unnecessary to suppose any at all.

Αἴτιος, which is a word of middle signification, here
simply signifies the cause, or author of (as ἀρχηγὸς
τῆς σωτηρίας) ; in which sense it is often employed
in the best authors; though in the later ones it is
more frequently used in malam partem. See the
examples adduced by Wets., Kypke, and Carpz.,
among which is Philo 2, 440. (speaking of. Noah),
αἴτιος σωτηρίας. By obedience (ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ) 15

HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 437

meant embracing his religion, and living suitably to
its precepts. The Commentators, however, think
there is an allusion to the obedience of Christ men-
tioned at ver.8.; q. d. ‘as Christ obeyed his Father,
and was by him made Lord of all, so also we, if we
obey Christ, shall receive eternal salvation.”

10. προσαγορευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ--- Μελχισεδέκ. On
the sense of zpocay. interpreters are not agreed,
Some render it vocatus, appellatus, nominatus. And
this, Dind. thinks, is all that it signifies. Casaub.,
however, renders it salutatus ; and others, cognomi-
natus, proclamatus, constitutus, &c. And this will
easily appear to be the true sense, if we consider that,
according to antient, and indeed modern, usage, ap-
pointment to any dignity or office is often made by
the sovereign not only in vesting the person with a
robe or ring, or other insignia of office, but by ad-
dressing and saluting him by the name of the office
and dignity ; as, for instance, in conferring the ho-
nour of knighthood.

The Apostle here (Rosenm. observes) returns to
the subject commenced at ver. 6., but soon again
makes a digression from it, extending to c. 7, 1.

11. περὶ οὗ---ἀκοαῖς. Ernesti well renders this:
“De quo nobis longa foret et difficilis intellectu
oratio, quoniam tardi estis.” Iegi οὗ, i. 6. the points
of similarity between the Priesthood of Melchisedec
and Jesus Christ. At περὶ οὗ----λόγος must be under-
stood ἐστι or éoras, “there is (or would be) much
more for me to say.” Now πολὺς ἂν εἴη 6 λόγος was a
frequent phrase, of which several examples are ad-
duced by Abr. and Wets. Auceguzvedros is synony-
mous with δυσεξοιστὸς and δυσδιήγητος. So Artemid.
On (cited by Wets.): ὀνείροι----ποικίλοι καὶ πολλοῖς δυ-
σερμιήνευτοι. The λέγειν is for the passive supine ;
and it is by some thought to be pleonastic. Carpz.,
however, (from Chrys.) observes, that the λέγειν is
not to be understood simply, as if the difficulty were
in the doctrine itself, but only as it regards the He-
brews. And this indeed is evident from, and seems

438 HEBREWS, CHAP. V.

hinted at in the words following ἐπεὶ νωθροὶ γεγό-
vare ταῖς ἀκοαῖς. With respect to the term νωθρὸς
(whatever be its origin; for of that the Etymologists
would do better to acknowledge i ignorance than put
forth the absurdities they do), it signifies sluggish
and slow of motion; and, like many such words, \ was
applied to the mind, and used to denote dull, stupid,
&c. of which Wets. adduces copious examples. But
the Apostle, per exegesin, adds ταῖς ἀκοαῖς, which is
used often of the ears of the understanding; on
which signification see Schleus. Lex.

_ Here, Dindorf and Rosenm. observe, commences
a digression containing reproof and consolation, and
which extends to the end of the next chapter. [{ is
well remarked by Theophyl. : Μέλλων εἰς τὴν διαφο-
ρὰν τῇ ς ἱερωσύνης καθεῖναι τὸν λόγον, πρότερον αὐτοῖς ἐπι-
τιμᾷ, δεικνὺς ὅτι διὰ τὸ νηπιώδες αὐτῶν τοσαῦτα ταπεινὰ
ἐφθέγξατο, καὶ τῷ κατὰ σάρκα λόγω ἐνδιέτριψεν" Ei yap
μὴ ἦσαν ἀσθενεῖς, πάλαι ἂν τῶν ὑψηλοτέρων ἐμνήσθη: Διὰ
τὴν ὑμετέραν οὖν νωϑρείαν, Φησι, δυσερμηήνευτός ἐστιν ὃ
λόγος 6 περὶ τοῦ, πώς ἐστιν ὁ Χοιστὺς ἀρχιερεὺς κατὰ τὴν
τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ" Καὶ διότι οὐ συνίετε ὑμεῖς, διὰ τοῦτο
ἐγὼ καλῶς ἐρμηνεῦσαι οὐ δύναμαι. So ἴο {Π6 Corinthians,
the Apostle says, he cannot “speak unto them as
unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, babes in Christ.”

12. καὶ yap ὀφείλοντες ---τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὙΠῸ καὶ is by
some rendered efenim, or preecipuée. But this is pre-
carious; and it is better to suppose a clause omitted,
- to which the γὰρ refers, aud assign to καὶ its usual
sense also, or even; 4. ἃ. “(And ‘such ye are) for '
though ye ought, according to the time, to be
ἜΑΡΟΣ ὙΠ &c. This is, I conceive, the sense of
ὀφείλοντες, a kind of nominativus pendens, which is
best rendered by a verb and a conjunction. And so
(I find) Owen. Eivai διδάσκαλοι is put. populariter
tor to be able to teach. Διὰ τὸν χρόνον is well ren-
dered pro ratione temporis, &c. ‘ considering the
time which ye have been learning the Christian reli-
gion.” Of this sense of διὰ τὸν χρόνον examples are
adduced by Wets. and Munthe. And so the antients
invariably took it.

HEBREWS, CHAP. V. 439

12. πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμάς, τίνα, &c.
The general sense is clear; but there is some diffi-
culty in exactly determining it; and that hinges on
διδάσκειν and τινα, which latter word may, according
to the punctuation, be taken either with the preced-
ing, or with the following. Most prefer the datter
mode, and subaud τινὰ in the former clause (or else
pe), or take διδάσκειν for διδάσκεσθαι. “The sense will
then be this: ‘ teach you what are the first ele-
ments.” Others take the τινὰ with the former clause,
cancelling the comma. ‘This is sanctioned both
by the antient and the most eminent recent Inter-
preters, as Arb., Pierce, J. Gronov., Mich., Heinr.,
Dindorf, and Rosenm., and (I think) rightly ; for
thus much harsh subaudition is avoided. As to pe,
which Grot. supplies, it cannot be approved. Twa
is more agreeable to the Apostle’s modesty, and may
be rendered one, and either denote himself, or any
fit teacher.

12. τῆς ἀρχῆς is a genitive for the cognate adjec-
tive, the first. Στοιχεῖα, elementa, principles, literally
some first principles to go upon (from στοιχεῖν) in
order to develope the details of any art or science.
And the Christian religion itself, or rather the sys-
tem of truths of which it consists, and which are
denoted by the λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (as 1 Pet. 4, 11.) may
be said to form a kind of science ; for which very
reason (and would that some who have a zeal, but
οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, would bear it in mind!) civilization
ought ever to precede evangelization.

12. καὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες, literally, “ and ye
became needing,” 1. e. such as to have need of. In
the γάλακτος, καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς there is a metaphor
by which doctrine is compared to food, occurring
also in 1 Cor. 3. init. (where see the note) and 1 Pet.
2, 2. and often in the Classical writers, from whom
many examples are adduced by Carpz. and Wets.*

* Thus Theophr. de c. p. 3,16. διὸ καὶ αὐτά στερεᾶς τροφῆς ἐλάτ-
rovos δεῖται ra πυκνὰ, Lucian Lexiph. 23. κατὰ τὸν τῶν ἀθλητῶν
νόμον ἣ στεῤῥά σοι τροφὴ συνήθης ἔστω. Arrian Epict. 2, 17. ov

θέλεις ἤδη, ὡς τὰ παιδία, ἀπογαλακτισθῆναι, καὶ ἅπτεσθαι τροφῆς
orepewrépas,

440 HEBREWS, CHAP. V.

And many passages of very similar sentiment are
adduced by both these Commentators from Philo.

Στερεὰ τροφή properly signifies stiff, or solid,
food, called by Galen ἰσχυρὸν Poapa, as that of flesh
and grain in its most condensed form; the contrary
to which was called βρώμα ἀσθενεστερὺν, i. 6. vegeta-
bles, including milk, &c. which is such, though
formed in the stomach of an animal, and is well op-
posed to the στερ. τροφή.

13, 14. πᾶς yap—Kakod.

At γαλάκτος must be understood μόνον ; a very frequent ellipsis.
And μετέχειν signifies, in a general way, to live upon, eat, ἅς,
There is here some obscurity, occasioned by a confusion of the phy-
sica] and metaphorical (or allegorical) senses, which, if kept apart,
would stand as follows: “Thus (as) every one who can live only on
milk is, in some sort, a babe, (so) every one who can profit only by
the first elements of the Gospel, is also a babe in knowledge, and is
ἄπειρος λόγου dikawovvns.’ Such appears to be the simplest mode
of considering the passage, and the most effectual one of removing
the difficulties, at which the Commentators strangely stumble.
Here again the metaphor and sentiment are copiously illustrated by
Carpz. from Philo. One passage may suffice: p. 188 Ε. ἐπεὶ δὲ
νηπίοις μὲν ἐστι γάλα τροφή τελείοις δὲ τὰ ἐκ πυρῶν πέμματα, καὶ
ψυχῆς γαλακτώδεις μὲν ἂν εἶεν τροφαὶ κατὰ τὴν παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν ----
τελείαι δὲ καὶ ἀνδράσιν εὐπρεπεῖς---αἱ ὑφηγήσεις. Schoettg. ob-
serves ἃ similar metaphor of the Rabbins, who call learners svgentes,
sucklings ; which will bring to the minds of many of my readers
the interesting picture of their venerable Alma Mater Cantabr.

As to the passages which Carpzov. gravely adduces, to prove that
milk was, among the antients, a usual food for babes (elegantly, I
would observe, termed by Soph. νέας τροφῆς), we may believe the
fact on the authority of less weighty vouchers. It may be well to
remark that milk has been, in all ages, recommended as a foed fit
for all very aged persons, and all whose powers of digestion are too
weak to separate the nourishment from solid fare: and this the
Apostle seems to allude to in the words following.

On the force of λόγου δικαιοσύνης there has been a variety of opi-
nions. The most favourite one with the recent Interpreters is that
of Grot. (ably supported by Abr., Rosenin., Zach., and Dind.), that
it signifies veri nominis institutio (as justi nominis statura), 1 1. 6. In-
struction and learning, such as it should be. But this is very harsh.
I am inclined to agree with the early moderns, as Beza and Owen,
and, of the later Commentators, Pierce, L’Enfant, and Doddr., and
of the recent ones, Heinr., that it signifies the doctrine of justifica-
tion by faith, which, it is probable, they, as well as the Galatian
Jewish Christians, had forgotten, or neglected. Storr thinks it sig-
nifies the doctrine of grace. But this is included in the other. In-
deed, the antients, and, of the moderns, Jaspis, take it to denote
omnia sublimiora et solidiora in Christologid.

HEBREWS, CHAP. V. VI. 441

The terms τελείων and στερεὰ τροφὴ, and ἕξιν, are equally adapted
both tothe natural and allegorical sense. Téecos properly signifies
adult, of which sense examples may be seen in Schleus. Lex., to
which I add an apposite passage from Artemid. 1, 16, 1. p. 30.
ἀσθενεῖς γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ ἐν γάλακτι παῖδες" καὶ μὲν (read μὴν) δὴ καὶ
οἱ τελείοι, ὅσαν νοσοῦντες τροφῇ μὴ δύνωνται χρῆσθαι---χρῶνται.
The genitive in τελείων denotes fitness fore, Διὰ τὴν ἕξιν, ““ by habit
induced by long use and exercise.” For ἕξιν signifies, properly, a
habit of body, and, metaphorically, a habit of mind, which supposes
use, custom, and exercise. Τὰ αἰσθητήρια ἐχόντων, sub. dpyava,i.e.
τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἃ8 Rosenm. explains.* 1 should prefer τὰς αἰσθήσεις ;
as in ἃ fragment of Ailian p. 1051. (Var. Hist. Gron.) By καλοῦ
and κακοῦ is meant, what is true and useful, and what is false and
pernicious. The whole sentence is thus elegantly paraphrased by
Jaspis: ‘* Primis rel. Chr. rudimentis debetis imbui, non plenior et
altior, subtilior, sublimior, ac perfectior institutio in vos cadit ;
ejusmodi institutionem et queestiones illi modo concoquere pos-
sunt, qui multo usu ac diuturnd consuetudine exerciti internum
sensum judiciumque discretivum tam bene subactum habent, et
idoneam consecuti sunt animi facultatem, acrioresque sensus, ut apti
sint, ad veraa falsis discernenda, utilia a noxiis separanda, et honesta
ab inhonestis sejungenda.”

CHAP. VI.

VERSE 1. διὸ---Φερώμεθα. Ard, wherefore. Jaspis
supplies, “ lest I should put you to too great shame,
if I were to speak to you again of fundamental doc-
trines, and that ye may not always remain the same
as I have described you, generally speaking, to be.”
᾿Αφέντες, letting go, leaving. Eis τὴν τελειότητα de-
ρώμεθα. The gee. is explained, by most Commen-
tators, se convertere. But this is somewhat flat ; and
the nature of the metaphor (which is a nautical one,
and used properly of a ship carried forward in full
sail) requires a more forcible sense, literally, “ let us
drive at, hasten to:” which seems more worthy of
the Apostle, and agreeable to the context. Much,
however, depends upon the interpretation of τελειό-
tyra, on which the modern Commentators are not -
agreed. Grot. understands it of the interpretation of

* And he adds: ‘* Quanquam et organa sensoria rect? intelligere
potes. Sicut enim in homine externo lingua, palatum, nares indi-
cant, que res bone, que male sint, sic et homo interior sua habet
aioOnrjpia, per que facile judicat, quid verum, quid falsum.”

442 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI.

the figures of the Old Testament, which, by the dis-
pensation of God, had all a bearing on the Gospel,
and thither tended. Carpzov. and Dindorf under-
stand it of the σοφίαν ἐν μυστηρίᾳ, 1 Cor. 2, 6 &7.,
or of Christ’s priesthood, like that of Melchisedec.
Others adopt other interpretations. After all, I
cannot but think, with the antient and some early
moderns, and also Schleus., that the rea. denotes the
same with the λόγος δίκαιος at 5, 13., where see the
note.

1. μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβοαλλόμινοι---Θεὺν.

In the interpretation of these words the recent Commentators run
into marvellous diversities of speculation. I shall detail the simplest
(and perhaps truest) interpretation, namely, that of Chrys. and
Theophyl,: τουτέστι, μὴ πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοιαῦτα ποιοῦντες, οἷα ἐποι-
εἴτε ὁπηνίκα ἐμέλλετε βαπτίξεσθαι" οἷον τὴν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων με-
τανοίαν, τουτέστι. τὴν ἀποταγὴν τῶν ἔργων τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Ὃ γὰρ
προσερχόμενος τῷ Χριστῷ, πρόδηλον ὅτι μετανοῶν ἐπὶ τῷ προτέρῳ
καὶ δόγματι καὶ βίῳ, οὕτω πρόσεισιν᾽ εἰ μὴ γὰρ καταγγῷ τοῦ προ-
τερου, πῶς τοῦ δευτέρου ἅψεται; διὸ ἐπάγει, καὶ πίστεως ; ἐπὶ Θεῷ.
Now the elementary observances of our religion are considered as a
foundation, on which the more recondite and difficult doctrines are
to be built: an architectural metaphor. In which view Carpzov. ἡ
cites Philo 1187. ἀρχὴν βαλλόμενος ὥσπερ θεμέλιον, and elsewhere.
And Dind. compares Ephr. Syr. Τὶ 2, 74. βαλεῖν καλὰς ἀρχὰς.
Abr. and Dind., however, observe, that the enumeration of impor-
tant doctrines subjoined is not to be considered as complete; since
others, not here mentioned (as in similar enumerations at 1 Cor.
15, 8 ἃ 4. 1 Thess. 1,9& 10, Tit. 2, 11—14.), are reckoned ἐν τοῖς
mpwrois: and, indeed, such a certain and definite enumeration of
the initiatory and elementary doctrines of Christianity is no where
to be found in Scripture. And further, that καταβ. μετανοίας can-
not mean lay a foundation for repentance, but lay a foundation quod ~
constat articuli de emendatione.” See the excellent note of Ernesti.

With respect to the νεκρὰ ἔργα, all are agreed that they mean evil
deeds, as being νεκρὰ, i.e. bringing misery, viz. spiritual death. So
Philo p. 60. (cited by Carpzov.) 6 δὲ ψυχῆς θάνατος, ἀρετῆς μὲν
φθόρα ἐστι, κακίας δὲ ἀνάληψις. See Rom. 7,10. And Rosenm.
observes that so Symmachus interprets the denunciation at Gen. 2,
17. θνητὸς éon. Abr. compares Acts 14, 5. ἃ 3,26. And Gatak.
Adv, ¢. 31. had observed that μετανοεῖν ἀπὸ τινος is a phrasis preg-
nans, On the subject itself see Braun.

By “πίστις ἐπὶ Θεὸν is meant faith in God as He is revealed to us
in the Gospel of Christ, in whom the promises of a Messiah were
fulfilled. See Abr., Carpz, and Rosenm.

2. βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, ἕο. The διδαχῆς is pleo-
nastic. On βαπτισμκὸν the Commentators are not

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 443

agreed. Ernesti thinks it is the plural for the sin-
gular; as οὐρανῶν and οἰκτιρμῶν elsewhere. Which,
Dindorf says, may be true: but asks whence the
plural? Grot., Braun., and others, think the plural
has reference to its two-fold nature, internal and
external. See also Lord Barrikepon. Rosenm. ex-
plains it of the many spiritual washings prescribed by
the law, both for purposes of cleanliness and rell-
gion, especially the baptism of proselytes, to which
Christ’s baptism bore some resemblance. Now to
know the difference between these was the first foun-
dation of Christ’s religion. Others, as Limborch
and Dindorf, think there is reference to the baptism
of John (and perhaps of proselytes), as compared
with that of Christ. I must confess that I see no
ground on which to form any decided opinion.

The ἐπιθέσεως χειρών involves less difficulty, for,
with the exception of some who refer it to the Jewish
χειροθεσία at the day of expiation, the best Commen-
tators, antient and modern, are agreed that it must
- have reference to the laying on of hands, which, in
that age, accompanied baptism,* as a symbol of the
spiritual gifts vouchsafed to many of the primitive
Christians. And so, at ver. 4., there is mention made
τῶν μετόχων γεννηθέντων πνεύματος ἁγίου.

The ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν is by some, as Gerhard,
Sclater, Estius, and Rosenm., understood of the
resurrection only of the just, and therefore to hap-
piness. But this is a very groundless fancy. It is
surprising that none of the more recent Commenta-
tors should have seen that it is refuted, and the com-
mon interpretation placed beyond doubt by the

* On which Jaspis remarks; ‘‘ Ritus antiquissimus, Gen. 48, 14.
Num. 27, 18 seqq. 2 Reg. 5, 11. primis rel. chr. doctoribus usita-
tissimus, vel ad morbos sanandos, Mare. 16, 8. Act. 9, 12 ἃ 17. vel
ad homines novo muneri inaugurandos (ut idem esset ac χειροτονεῖν,
Act. 13, 23.), Act. 6,6. 8,17 & 18. 1 Tim. 4, 14. 2 Tim. 1, 6. vel
ad eximenda peccata, vel ad impertienda dona illa plane singularia
seu πνεῦμα ἅγιον conferendum in Christianos. Act. 8, 17. 19, 6.
Quare in veteri ecclesié manuum impositio cum baptismi ritu con-
juncta fuit.”

4.44. HEBREWS, CHAP. VI.

words of the Apostle himself in his speech before
Felix, Acts 24, 15., where, in a confession of his
faith, he says : ἐχαίδαλὲ ἔχων---ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσ-
θαι νεκρῶν, δικαιών. τε καὶ ἀδικών.

8. καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν, ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ 6 Θεὺς. The
antients (see Theophy!.) and most eminent moderns,
are agreed that nese words have reference to the
ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα Φερώμεθα of ver. 1., and signify :
«* And now, with God’s permission and help, we pro-
ceed to this expianation of the more sublime doc-
trines of the Gospel, especially as they regard the
Old Testament, and its accommodation to Christ, or
the comparison of the history and economy of the
old covenant with those of the new.” Jaspis para-
phrases thus: “ Vos in ipsa allegoriarum adyta in-
troducam, fusius delegam, quid ex tota V. 'T. ceco-
nomia ad Christum accommodari possit, ut hujus per-
sonz summa dignitas inde eluceat, ac prastantia et
salubritas ejus operis inde intelligatur.” As to the
interpretation of Grot. and Hamm., as detailed by
Whitby, it is utterly inadmissible. Theophyl. rightly
observes on the ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπη 6 Θεός, that the
Apostle says this, not as though God would not per-
mit this, but as being accustomed to use such for-
mulas of dependance on Divine Providence.

4,5,6. These verses are closely united: but their connection with
the preceding is not easy of determination. Perhaps the mode of
tracing it proposed by Heinrich may be the best: “‘ Neque enim
tam facile est negotium, iterum tradere et commendare alicui ea
que jam respicit.” Rosenm. thinks the Apostle means to say that
his business is not with apostates, such as there were then among
the Jews (see 10, 26.), nor would he, for their sakes, repeat the
first elements of religion, presuming that would be in vain ; for it
cannot be that such men should be reformed, being like bad ground,
on which whatever is sown, is thrown away.” This view (nearly
that taken by Ernesti) is approved by Dind.

By ἀδυνατὸν, all the best Commentators are agreed, is meant,
not physical, but moral impossibility, or rather, by a popular hyper-
bole, extreme difficulty. And so, Dind. remarks, it is rendered in
the Old Vulg. difficile. And so Theophyl. explains it of sucha
degree of difficulty as to cause just despair. And this sense perquam
difficile et prope modum impossibile, I have often met with in the
Classical writers. Thus the disputes on this expression between
the Calvinists, Lutherans, Arminians, &c. prove mere logomachies.

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 44.5

Φωτισθέντας, “ fully instructed, imbued with Gospel truths.” A
metaphor occurring in 2 Cor, 4, 46., ἃς. This signification Dind.
has learnedly, but needlessly, discussed; since no one can doubt
or hesitate about it. It is a more interesting question whether the
word is to be understood of baptism. So the antients seem invariably
to have taken it. Hence the primitive Fathers frequently use φωτίθω
and its derivatives. This interpretation has, however, been objected to
by most modern Commentators. The chief arguments they use are,
that here, and in the parallel passage of 10, 26. φωτίξεσθαι signifies
λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἄληϑείας ; that it much lowers the dig-
nity of the sentiment; and that there was no reason why any ex-
press mention should be made of baplism; since those who are
here adverted to may be supposed to have been already baptized ;
nor could the benefits spoken of accrue to others. But these seem
not very forcible arguments. And I should be inclined, with
Whitby, to prefer the antient interpretation. But, in order to re-
concile the antient and modern opinions, we should bear in mind
the peculiar dispensation of the Gospel under which Christians of
that age lived, and which would authorize that to be then said of
baptism which could not be said of it inany other age. It is strange
the Commentators should not have thought of this, which will best
account for the μετόχους πνεύματος ἁγίου. Other modes of recon-
ciling the discrepancy may be seen in Est., Hyper., Limb., and
Doddr. But they seem precarious.

Tevoapévous τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου; enjoyed. A metaphor
not uncommon in the Classical writers, especially in the figurative
writings of Philo. See Carpz. The πνεύματος may be (as it is by
many) understood of the ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit ;
but it here seems far more natural to understand it of the extraor-
dinary ones (see Grot.) which were supposed to follow, and often
did follow, baptism. See Abr. The καλὸν ῥῆμα Θεοῦ is commonly
explained the Gospel covenant, and the promises of resurrection, and
eternal happiness. Theodoret explains ὑπόσχεσιν τῶν ἀγαθῶν.
And so Abr. Other interpretations are proposed by Pierce, Ern.,
Mich., and Carpz. ingenious, but precarious; and indeed so flex-
ible is the term, that to fully determine ils meaning is very difficult.
But | prefer the first mentioned interpretation, i.e. the Gospel,
Christ's. religion, which is supported by the authority of all the
antients and, of the moderns, by Wets., Rosenm., Heinr., and
Dind., who compare the Hebr. 2 7:5 in Jer. 29, 10.33, 14. This
construction, with the accusative instead of the genitive, is some-
times found in the Classical writers.

Δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. Here again the sense is dubious;
and hence various are the interpretations that have been proposed
(which see in Dind.). Some antients and early moderns, and, of
the recent ones, Storr, interpret this of the miraculous ἐνεργήματα
of the primitive Christians; and they take μελλ. αἰῶνος of the
times of the Messiah. Others suppose the words to mean, what the
Gospel can effect in making us happy. Rosenm. renders, ‘had a
foretaste of the benefit of eternal life.” All these, and some other

͵

446 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI.

interpretations, yield a good sense, but are liable to various objec-
tions. One thing seems certain, that pedd. αἰῶνος must be under-
stood of the future world, or eternal life. I would therefore con-
jecture that this may mean “ the powerful supports of eternal life,”
i. e. of the Gospel which reveals it.

Καὶ παραπεσόντα----παραδειγματίξοντας. ‘The term παραπίπ-
τειν signifies properly to full aside, and, like the Hebr. bpp and dyn,
is sometimes used (as here) of falling away from religious faith and
profession. Abresch compares 2 Chron. 29, 19., where byna is
rendered ἐν τῇ ἀποστασίᾳ. And in Suidas Adam is called ὁ παρα-
πεσὼν. And in Polyb. we have παραπεσὼν τῆς ἀληθείας. In παλίν
ἀνακαινίθειν there is what appears a pleonasm; though such are
not unusual in antient and modern languages (and examples are
adduced by Abresch); indeed they sometimes, as here, tend to
strengthen the sense. With respect to the avakatvizey, this term
is found in the later writers; as Joseph., Philo, and Appian; and
sometimes signifies to thoroughly repair, as used of houses, or gar-
ments, and has occasionally a metaphorical sense. The critics,
however, are not agreed whether we are to here subaud ἑαυτοὺς
(as does Carpz.), or take it for ἀνακαινέξεσθαι; as does Abr., un-
derstanding the Apostle himself, or soiwwe other teacher. And Abr.
thinks this may be done, even though the active sense be retained.
It should seem, however, to be a matter of indifference whether the
active, or the passive sense be adopted, so that no improper stress te
laid upon the pronoun; for it seems to be a reflected verb. As to
the eis μετανοίαν, there is no occasion to take eis in the unusual
sense of διὰ, but regard the verb ἀνακαινέξειν, as a VOx pregnans,
importing reform and come to repentance.

The next words assign another reason why it is most difficult for
them to come to reformation, seeing that they ave crucified, &c.
(ἀνασταυροῦντας being for a verb and conjunction.) The best mo-
dern critics are agreed that the ava has no force ; and they adduce
many examples of such a use. And certainly, from the very nature
of the signification of this verb, that may very well be admitted,
‘They have shewn by examples, that neither in this verb nor in ἀνα-
σκελιτίθειν has the ava any force. The common opinion seems to
have arisen from a well meant, but mistaken, piety, as if to place
such apostacy in the very worst light. The ἑαυτοῖς signifies guan-
tum in se; for {as Grot. observes) they are said to do what they
approve. Morus renders, “ to their detriment.” Tlapadevyparigew
signifies to make an example of any one, by bringing him to
punishment, and thereby to shame; and sometimes means no more
than ὑβρέξειν. It was, however, often associated with verbs denot-
ing public punishment, as here ; and this isall that need be attended
to. The sense is unnecessarily refined on by the critics. See,
however, Dind. It is rightly observed by Rosenm., that apostates,
and not evil living Christians, are here meant. And it may be added,
that apostates, by their desertion of the faith, represented the cru-
cifixion as just, and therefore did thus especially put the Son of God
to open shame.

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI, 447

7, 8. γὴ--τἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Apostle now depicts,
by a beautiful image, the condition of those who, en-
joying the exuberance of Christian doctrine, apply this
blessing to a good use; as contrasted with those who
put it toa bad one. By this the extreme difficulty
of conversion in apostacy is placed in a yet stronger
light. (Dind.) The apodosis is here omitted; since
the application is obvious.

Of this figurative sense of πίνειν and πίπτειν the
philologists adduce numerous examples; and I have
myself collected several: but it is unnecessary to in-
troduce any, since such a figure is common even in
modern languages. Βοτάνη, like the Hebr. SW
(See Schleus. Lex.) denotes all the fruits of the
earth, both grass and corn. Εὔθετον, properly fitted,
or fit; also beneficial and useful. Vewpyetras is
well rendered, by whom it is dressed; having re-
ference both to grazing and agriculture. Thus our
term husbandman has reference to both. Μεταλαμ-
βάνει εὐλογίας α. π. @., ‘enjoys God’s blessing in a
plentiful produce.” So 2 Cor. 9, 6. “the smell of
a field which the Lord hath blessed.” This is the
usual language both of the Old and New Testament,
by which is inculcated the dependance of human
labour on Divine aid and blessing. Μεταλαμβάνει
εὐλογίας is an elegant term for εὐλογεῖται. The ap-
plication is obvious, on which see Chrys., Theophyl.,
and others. But it must not be traced too minutely.

᾿Εκφέρουσα. This is simply a variation of expres-
sion for τίκτουσα. ᾿Αδόκιμος, rejectanea. The sense
of the whole clause may be thus expressed: “ is
held despicable, and almost abandoned with a curse
(for with ¢hat such abandonment is usually accom-
panied), and whose end (if it be converted to use)
is to be burnt.” ᾿Αδόκιμος is used of whatever is
rejectaneous, whether money that will not pass, or,
in a general way, what men (as we say) would not
have asa gift. The éyyts is usually rendered pro-
pediem, and taken of time. But I prefer the version
of others, *‘ execrationi affinis,” or Anglicé, “is almost

448 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI.

$3

ready to be abandoned with a curse ;” Or, as others
explain, ‘‘is called accursed ;” a name given some-
times to barren fields by the antients. Αἱ ἧς τὸ
τέλος εἰς καῦσιν, the simplest ellipsis is ἐστι. And
the Commentators in the eis καῦσιν notice a Hebraism,
like Somn. So Is, 44,15. ἵνα ἦ ἀνθρώποις εἰς καῦσιν.
The εἰς καῦσιν. stands for the infinitive passive. The
burning, of course, applies, as Rosenm. says, not to
the land, but what grows uponit. Yet itis absurd
to extend it, as he does, to the farm-house and trees;
for however weary a husbandman might be of the
expense, it would do no good to burn his house and
the timber. But indeed the house is out of the
question; and as to ¢rees, such land seldom pro-
duces any. ‘The burning here spoken of has refer-
ence to what grows on the land, as bushes, thorns,
thistles and weeds, which, when burnt up by the
roots, leave the soil clear, and manure it for a better
produce. The application is obvious; but must be
traced with caution and judgment.

9. πεπείσμιεθα---σωτηρίας. The Apostle now (as
often) tempers severity with mildness, and uses
language expressive of hope 1 in them: for consider-
ing what precedes, πεπείσμαι can import no more
than a good hope; and such is the popular use of
this and similar words in all languages. “Ypoy, too,
does not necessarily imply all without exception. So
Theophyl : φησιν οὖν, ὅτι οὐχ ὡς κατεγνωκὼς ὑμῶν,
ταῦτα λέγω, οὐδὲ ὡς νομίϑων ὑ ὑμᾶς ἀκανθών πλήρεις, ἀλλὰ
δεδοικὼς ἵ ἐνα μὴ τοῦτο γένηται.

On the ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας the Commentators run
into strange diversities ; some regarding the ἐχόμενα
as pleonastic ; others taking the cwr. of temporal
deliverance. But the former is unsupported by the
usage of Scripture, and of the Apostle; and the
latter is at variance with the context. Others again,
as Schleus., take the τὰ ἐχόμενοι to denote constancy,
perseverance. .But this is so harsh as to deserve no
attention. The cwr. must denote salvation ; and it
is strange the Commentators should not have seen

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 449

that the ἐχόμενα is an expression suited to the deli-
cacy of the Apostle, and the uncertainty which he
felt respecting their future conduct. His meaning
is, that he (hopes and) trusts he shall see in them at
least actions which are connected with salvation, as
leading to those higher advances in religion and
virtue which immediately tend to it.

Ei γὰρ οὔτω λαλοῦμεν is a formula mitigandi of
frequent occurrence.

10. οὐ γὰρ ἄδικος---ἀγάπης. The Apostle now ad-
verts to the cause for that hope and trust, namely, as
seated in the support of God, the author of constancy
and every other good work.

The κόπου is omitted in a few MSS. and Versions ;
and thrown out of the text by the recent Editors;
but (I think) on insufficient grounds. The MSS. in
question are such as have passed through the hands
of the corrector, and the emendation here arose from
over nicety. But though the κόπου has somewhat of
inelegance, yet it strengthens the sense; and though
the Critics think it has been introduced from 1 Thess.
1, 3., yet it were strange that it should have crept
into nearly all the MSS. Indeed the κόπου must be
retained ; and its genuineness is defended by Dind.

The ἄδικος is used with reference to the conde-
scension and benignity of God towards men. See
Ernesti. On the hendiadis in τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, καὶ τοῦ
κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης, I would compare Soph. Aj. 536.,
ἐπηνεσ᾽ ἔργον καὶ πρόνοιαν, ἥν ἔθου" Eurip. Pheen. 189.,
φόβος, εἰ πείσω---μόχθου δὲ χάριν τήνδε ἐπιδώσω. It is
remarked by Rosenm.; “ Justitie est implere pro-
missa, quare Deus injustus aliquo modo dici posset,
si non staret promissis. Obliviscitur autem, qui non
remuneratur.” Εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, “towards him,
in his cause and for his sake.” Διακονέω is here (as
often) used of all those offices of humanity, hospi-
tality, and kindness active and passive, by which the
wants of Christian brethren are supplied, and their
comfort promoted.

VOL. VIII. ’ 26

450 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI.

11. ἐπιθυμοῦμεν----τέλους. We have here only to
remark, that ἡ πληροφορία τῆς ἐλπίδος is used (like the
same phrase at 10, 2.,and πληροφορία τῆς συνέσεως at
Col. 2, 2.) to denote spes certissima, “in order to
your having a firm and sure hope unto the end.”

12. ἵνα μὴ---ἐπαγγελίας, “ That ye be not (as
hitherto) dull and remiss (in that firmness of hope),
but be imitators of those who, through faith and con-
stancy, have attained the promises.” Μακροθυμία,
ἐς constancy and patient endurance ;” as Col. 1, 11.,
where see the note. ΚΚληρονομούντων. Participle Im-
perfect. ‘The word here (as often) signities to obtain.
᾿Επαγγελίας, “ the benefits promised.”

13. τῷ γὰρ ᾿Αβραὰμ.---καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ. By the ἐπαγ-
γειλάμενος the Apostle means what is mentioned at
ver. 14.; and he takes occasion, from the promise
to Abraham, to speak of the firmness of the Divine
will and purpose, which he illustrates from an oath.
Philo, too (referring to Gen. 22,16 & 17.), says, only
“‘ sware by himself.” (Rosenm.)

14. λέγων---πληθυνώ ce. They μὴν is a common
formula jurandi, both in the Scriptural and the Clas-
sical writers. The passage here adverted to is from
Gen. 22, 17., Sept., except that for πληθυνώ ce, there
is πληθυνώ τὸ σπέρμα cov. ‘Lhe σε, however, may very
well include’ the σπέρμα, or posterity. The use of the
verb and Participle has usually (as here) an emphatic
and intensive force.

15. καὶ οὕτω---ἐπαγγελίας, “ And thus (by this
constancy of faith) he obtained the promised bene-
fits, both temporal, (in a numerous offspring) and
eternal, (in the admission to that salvation he looked
forward to).”. See Hebr. 11, 10. This, Dind. ob-
observes, must show us, that we may very well confide
in God’s promises, though we may not comprehend
the mode in which he will perform them.

16. ἄνθρωποι μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείϑονος ὀμνύουσι.
The connection is here obscure, and hence various
have been the modes of tracing it, for which I must
refer the reader to Dind. and Rosenm. By the τοῦ

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 451

μείϑονος is supposed to be meant God. The con-
struction is thus laid down by Rosenm. : καὶ ὃ ὅρκος
cis βεβαίωσιν (sc. προσθετὸς 5. προστιθέμιενος) ἐστιν αὐ-
τοῖς πέρας πάσης ἀντιλογίας. He takes the καὶ in the
sense uf; and explains ἀντιλογία cogitatio in contra-
rium, or dubitatio; as'7,7. Yet I prefer the com-
mon interpretation, contradiction, or strife. Theoph.
well explains thus: ἐκ rod ὅρκου λύεται πάσης ἀντιλο-
γίας ἀμφισβήτησις" καὶ γὰρ λέγονται μὲν πολλὰ, καὶ ἀνι-
λέγονται ἐξ ἑκατέρου μέρους, ὃ δὲ ὅρκος τελευταῖος ἐπεισιὼν
καὶ βεβαίων, τὰ ἀμφίβολα λύει πάντα. I would com-
pare Liban. Or. 97 Β.; τὸ τὴν ἀμφισβητησιμωὼν πέρας"
and 190, a.

17. ἐν ὦ περισσότερον--ὅρκω. The ἐν ὦ is plainly
for διὰ τοῦτο wherefore. So Theophyl. explains it διὸ.
And he adds: ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις 6 ὅρκος πᾶσαν
πίστιν ἐπιφέρει, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ὄμνυσιν. The
general sense is what Hardy (from the early
moderns) lays down; q. d. “Though a simple
promise of blessing would have sufficed, yet God, ex
abundanti, interposed an oath.” So Theophyl. ob-
serves, that the Almighty sware by himself, in order
to abundantly assure us that he will unalterably
keep, and certainly perform, all that He promises.
God’s swearing was, therefore, from condescension
to human infirmity. “Epectrevrey ὅρκῳ, literally,
‘* he interposed with an oath,” i. 6. as the Vulg. well
renders interposuit gusjurandum. I would here
compare Soph. Electr. 47.

18. ἵνα διὰ δύο---ἐλπίδος, By the two immutable
things the best Commentators, antient and modern,
understand the promise of God, of itself’ immuta-
ble (See Rom. 11, 29.), and the oath of God, added
in condescension to human infirmity. Ψεύσασθαι,
fidem fallere. Rosenm. observes, ‘ improprie dici-
tur ψεύδεσθαι, cujus verbis aliquis fallitur, ideo quod
ea intelligit.”. ‘The promise and oath were both so
plain as to admit of no mistake. “Ive has here the
eventual sense. The παράκλησιν is by some antients
and moderns explained adhortationem. But the

463

4.52 HEBREWS, CHAP. V1.

common rendering, consolation, is far more suitable
to the words following. At the καταφυγόντες Com-
mentators stumble. But it is only necessary to con-
sider this as two clauses blended into one, i. 6. “ to
take refuge in any hoped for place of security that
lies before us,”’ and “ to cling to it.” Rosenm. sup-
plies πρὸς, or εἰς τὸς ‘The metaphor in κρατῆσαι is
(as the Commentators remark) a nautical one, like
that in the next verse, and signifies, to lay hold of
and cling to any thing, as a drowning mariner does
toarope. It is here well remarked by Rosenm.,
that the oath of God to Christians, here meant, is to
be sought in the example of Abraliam, proposed for
our instruction. Whence we may learn, that God,
if He wishes, or intends any thing or promise, does
it animo serio. “Now God has promised many things
to us Christians. Therefore, our hope is as certain
as if God had confirmed the promise by an oath.”
Perhaps, too, there is a reference to what is said at
7, 21. For, while God promised to Christ the
Priesthood by an oath, He promised to us the eter-
nal salvation to be attained by this our High Priest.

19, 20. ἣν ὡς ἔχομεν--- καταπετάσματος. The 7 and
᾿εἰσερχομένην, are by some referred to παράκλησιν : by
others, to ἐλπίδα ; which mode of interpretation is
adopted by the antients, and the most eminent
moderns.. The ἔχομεν is well explained, by Abr. and
Dind., κατέχομεν, keep hold of; citing from an
anonymous writer, ap. Chrys.: κατέχειν τὴν ἄγκυραν
τοῦ πνεύματος. With respect to the metaphor, nothing
is more frequent among the Classical writers, from
whom examples are adduced by Palairet, Kypke,
and Wets., to which I add Aristoph. Eg. 1244.,
Eschyl, Ag. 488., Eurip. H. F. 105., Artemid. On.
2, 23., Heliod. 2,199 & 172. From this, however,
it must not be inferred that St. Paul had read the
Greek Classics, for the expression seems to have
been proverbial (See Erasm. Adag.); as ἐν πείση
καρδίαν τηρεῖν (See Blomf. on βοῦν]. Pers. 68.) ;
and even on coins hope was sometimes represented

HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. 453

under the symbol of an anchor. So Appian, 1, 620.,
εἰπεῖν ἀσφαλείας τὴν ἄγκυραν εἶναι σύμβολον. By hope,
is meant, “{πΠ6 mind fraught with hope.”

Kal εἰσερχομιένην is best rendered by a verb and
relative, “and which entereth,” &c. The κατα-
πέτασμα was the thick veil, or curtain, which sepa-
rated the Sanctum from the Sanctum Sanctorum ;
though there is reason (from the Old Testament,
Josephus, and Philo) to suppose that there were two
veils placed nearly together, of which, the one
turned towards the Sanctum Sanctorum was called
the καταπέτασμα ; the other, towards the Sanctum,
the κάλυμμα. See Philo, 667, c. and the other
authors cited by Dind. ‘Thus, “ to enter into this
inner curtain,” signifies, to enter the place it separates
from the rest of the temple, i. e. the Sanctum Sanc-
torum, by which is here plainly meant heaven ; as 8,
2., and 9, 11.; a typical sense also found in Philo
and Josephus, the former of whom, 291, has εἰς τὸ
ἐσώτερον καταπέτασμα. And so Carpz. and Braun.
The force of the whole expression is well illustrated
by Theophyl. Thus: Λέγει ὅτι καὶ ἠχομένην αὐτὰ τῇ
ἐλπίδι. Αὕτη γὰρ εἰσέλθουσα ἔνδον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἐποίη-
σεν ἡμᾶς ἤδη εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἐπαγγελμένοις, κἀν ἔτι κάτω
ὦμεν, κἂν μήπω ἔλάβομεν. “Γοσαύτην ἔχει τὴν ἰσχὺν ἡ
ἐλπὶς, ὥστε τοὺς ἐπιγείους οὐρανίους ποιεῖν.

20. ὅπου πρόδρομος ---αἰώνα, “ whither our precursor,
forerunner,” &c.

On προέδομος Dindorf has a learned note, which he concludes by
observing that εἰσῆλθεν πρόδρομον is a mere periphrasis for εἰσῆλ-
θεν πρὸ ἡμῶν : as πρόδρομος ἦλθε is for προῆλθε in Aischyl. Theb.
217. But το {151 must demur. The usage of a Poet will prove
nothing : and προῆλθε must there mean pravertit ; as it is rendered
by Bp. Blomfield. Though that is nothing to our present purpose.
And as to Charit. 8, 6. (cited by Dind.) where ships which have
arrived first of a fleet, are called πρόδρομοι (to which may be added
Eurip. Andr. 854., πρωτοπλοὺς tara), such passages are inapposite,
since the context here requires something more. ‘The word προδρα-
prety, as Carpz. remarks, is often used of running forward, to deliver
a message, make preparation, &c. And, he might have added, that
in this very sense the word occurs in Eurip. Iph. Aul. 424. Ἐγὼ δὲ
πρόδρομος, σῆς παρασκευῆς χάριν, ἥκω. Now this use of πρόδρο-
pos (as the antients and best moderns have seen) is here very

4.54 HEBREWS, CHAP. VI. VII.

applicable. A πρόδρομος, (Theophyl. observes,) supposes some to
follow him, and in no long time. It supposes, too, the possibility
of entering being ascertained, and preparation made for those that
follow. The best Commentary on this passage is Joh. 14, 2., “ I go
to prepare a place for you. And if 1 go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am,
there ye may bealso”’ And so Carpz., who has here best seen the.
sense, As tothe explanation of Mich. and Rosenm., principatus,
that is a too great lowering of the sense; and though they compare
2, 10., ἀρχηγὸς τὴς σωτηρίας, yet that passage is not to the purpose;
for it has been proved that the sense there is not captain of our sal-
vation, but author of our salvation. Hence it is clear that
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν was used κατ᾽ ἐπεξήγησιν, and must mean, ““ on our
behalf, for our sakes and benefit, by the preparation made, through
his intercession for us with the Father, &c.’"” See Chrys. and ‘Theo-
phyl. ;

CHAP. VII.

After a long digression, the Apostle returns to
his subject, and explains the passage of Ps. 110, 4.,
which he had brought forward, supra, 5, 6 & 10.;
and after removing the doubt which might seem to
hinder him from treating of the sublime doctrines of
the allegories and types of Christ, he especially
labours to convince them of the authority, preroga-
tives, and exalted Priesthood of Melchisedec. (Dind.,
Rosenm., and Jaspis). In this Chapter is contained
a type of Melchisedec, accommodated to Christ. It
consists of two parts. Ist., From 1—10., the type is
described and explained; first, his Priesthood, simply
1—3., and then its excellence, 4—10. 2dly., From
11 fin. the type is transferred to Christ, and the
superiority of his priesthood over Aaron’s is demon-
strated.

VERSE 1. οὕτως γὰρ 6 Μελχισεδὲκ, &c. The γὰρ,
as Pierce and others have seen, is resumptive, and
has reference to 5,10. It is plain that the verb to
οὕτως 6 Μελχισεδέκ is not (as some fancy) ἐστι under-
stood, but μένει at ver. 38. On the story of Melchise-
dec and Abraham, as here referred to, see Gen. 14,
18. Some, indeed, have doubted whether such a

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 455

person did really exist, and, consequently, whether
this be a proper name. But that notion has been
discountenanced by almost every judicious Com-
mentator. It is justly remarked by Ernesti, that
“ Historical narrations (such as this) are not to be
taken allegorically, but in their plain grammatical
sense ; otherwise the Scripture would become mere
wax, to be moulded any way.” ‘This, therefore, is a
proper name, and of the same form with Adonizedec
and others. Now Melchisedec was (according to
the most antient custom) at once King and Priest.
A full account of him may be seen in Carpz. Appa-
rat. Antig. Sacr. Cod. 1, 4., p. 52., and Dind.*

On the region meant by Salem Commentators are
little agreed. ‘That it is the same with Jerusalem,
was the opinion of Josephus and almost all the an-
tients. And so most moderns, especially Reland,
and recently Michaelis. Others, however, as Carpz.,
Heinr., and Dindorf, think it was not Jerusalem.
Carpzov. and Rosenm. say it was occupied by the
Jebusees, or was the capital of that region, not far
from the plain which was first called the valley of
Siddem, and afterwards the Dead Sea, where Sodom
and Gomorrah, Adar and Zeboim, were situated,
which city (Salem) being, in after times, perhaps
destroyed, ceased to exist, or took another name.
See Whitby and Mackn.

1. 6 συναντήσας ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς

* The latter distributes the opinions into two classes. Ist. That of
those who supposed him to be a Divine being, 2dly, a created one.
The former was maintained by some antient fanatics, as the Hiera-
critee, Melchisedeciani, and Ambrose ; nay, even some moderns, as
Molinzus, Gaillard, Hottinger, Starck, &e. 2nd., That of some (as
Origen and Didymus) who supposed him to be an Angel, Most
Commentators, however, suppose him to have beena man, Some
say Enoch; others, Shem; others, Job. All which opinions are
evidently open to objection. The best founded seems to be that of
Carpz., and most judicious moderns (and also Josephus) that he was
a principal person among the Canaanites and the posterity of Noah,
and eminent for his holiness and justice ; and, therefore, discharged
the Priestly as well as regal functions among the people,

456 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ εὐλογήσας αὐτὸν. The κοπῆς may
mean cutting in pieces, slaughter: but as κόπτειν
often signifies no more than to beat, 1.6. to defeat,
so κοπὴ perhaps here merely mean defeat. I would
refer to an important passage in Joseph. 1292, 28.
The εὐλόγησας αὐτὸν most recent Commentators take
to mean no more than congratulated him. And
Schleus. adduces as examples of this signification
Luke 2, 34. and Tob. 9, 6. But neither of these
passages will prove it. ‘The datter is not to the pur-
pose; and in the former the word may well admit of
that extent of signification which the antients and
earlier moderns are agreed in ascribing to it in the
present passage, and which, indeed, the words of
Genesis require. Ernesti has here an excellent note,
the substance of which is as follows: “ Evaoyeiy, in
the best Classical writers, signifies, 1st, to praise.
Qdly. In the New Testament, like ΤΊΣ, it signifies
ἁγιάϑειν, to ascribe holiness to. any thing by prayer,
and, as spoken of a person, alicut bene ominari, pre-
cari, alicui promittere et preedicare auctoritate Di-
vina; and such is the sense here. Now this kind of
εὐλογία could only be pronounced either by God, as
Gen. 1, 28., or by men divinely inspired (at least for
the time); as was Jacob when he blessed his sons.”
In the same way (I would add) the passage of Luke
above mentioned is to be understood : for Simeon
was then (as we learn from the Evangelist) ἐν τώ
πνεύματι, i. 6. divinely inspired ; and at ver. 25. it is
said: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἦν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. I trust, there-
fore, I have shown that this was (though Rosenm.
denies it) a sacerdotal benediction.

2. ᾧ kal δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων ἐμέρισεν ᾿Αβραάμ.
By the πάντων are, of course, meant πάντ. ἀκροθινίων,
which is expressed in Joseph. Ant. 1, 2., and indeed
infra, ver. 4. In vain do Heinr. and Dindorf endea-
vour to represent this as merely an interchange of
presents by courtesy between two princes. And
Heinr. thinks the proportion, namely, a tenth, was

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 45'7

merely accidental; the improbability of which it
were needless to point out.* That this was far dif-
ferent from an interchange of courtesy is plain from
the Apostle; and that the tenth was not accidental is
evident from the extreme antiquity of this custom of
all nations of making these grateful offerings, and
that in this very proportion.~ 'To the passages cited
by the Commentators and Ecclesiastical Antiquaries,
1 could add several from Herodot., Thucyd., &c.;
but it is not necessary. I would moreover observe
that the nature of the term ἐμέρισας evidently re-
guires this interpretation ; and the words of Genesis
are such as to permit no other.

2. πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμιηνευόμινος---εἰρήνης. The best mode
of taking these words is to consider them as elliptical,
and (with Carpzov) to be thus supplied: Πρῶτον μὲν
ἑομιηηνευόμενος ἐστι ὃ Μελχισεδὲκ κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
βασιλεὺς Δικαιοσύνης" ἔπειτα δ᾽ ἐστι καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ,
ὅ ἐστι ἑομηνευόμιενον Βασιλεὺς Εἰρήνης. And so Heinr.

8. ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ. It is rightly observed, by
Dind. and Rosenm. (and this, indeed, others before
them had seen), that Melchisedec is so called, be-
cause his name was not preserved in the genealogies,
as is apparent from the following ἀγενεαλόγητος,
which is exegetical of the preceding. And Dindorf
ascribes the merit of this interpretation to A. Morus.
But it is due to Chrys. and Theophyl.; and such,
we may suppose, was the interpretation of the early
Christians ; since we find, in the very antient Syriac

* A similar misconception is guarded against by Theophyl. thus :
(p- 936.) Kai οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ὡς συστρατευσαμένῳ καὶ συμπο-
νήσαντι ἀπεμέρισέ τινα ἀμοιβὴν τοῦ καμάτου, ἀλλ᾽ οἴκοι καθημένω.
Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ προεῖπεν ἀνωτέρω, ὅτι συνήντησε τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ
ὑποστρέφοντι ἀπὸ τῆς κοπῆς τῶν βασιλέων.

+ Parkhurst, Heb. Lex. in v. "wy, thinks that from the well-
known practice of the Heathens in various and distant countries
(for which he refers to Spelman on Tythes, c. 26. Seld., c. 3. and
Lesley’s Divine Right of Tythes, ὃ. 7.) of dedicating tythes (i.e.
tenths) to their Gods, there is no room to doubt but that this reli-
gious custom was as antient as the dispersion of Babel, and even
made a part of the Patriarchal] religion before the Deluge.

458 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

Version, “ cujus nec pater nec mater scripti sunt in
genealogiis.”” Now in this respect Melchisedec was
inferior to the Levitical Priests. And thus also his
anti-type, Christ, was ἀγενεαλόγητος.

The words μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν pyre ϑωῆς are (it
should seem) also exegetical, and are to be under-
stood of the Mosaic annals, and perhaps of some

other early chronologies preserved in the temple,
sometimes alluded to by Josephus. This seems to
be the simplest mode of interpretation ; though many
others have been proposed, which may be seen in
τ Wolf, and Dindorf.

8. ἀφωμοιωμιένος δὲ τῷ viw τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς
τὸ διηνεκὲς. On the sense of these words there have
been numerous opinions. Dindorf offers the fol-
lowing interpretation : ‘‘ his de causis dicitur ἀφώ-
μοιωμένος τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, assimulatus in ea re filio
Dei: quod et filius Dei fuit sacerdos, sed none tribu
Levitica ; quod filius Dei dicitur neque initium vite
habere neque finem, et sacerdos perpetuus manere,
in eo quodammodo similitudinem habet cum Melchi-
sedeco, sed alio sensu omnia de Christo dicuntur.”
On the last words no determination can well be
made. See Dindorf. Perhaps the opinion of some
antients, as Theophyl. -, may be as near the truth as
any : Μελχισεδὲκ ἀτελεύτητον λέγεται ἔχειν τὴν ἱερω-
σύνην, οὐχ᾽ ὅτι on ἀεὶ ἐτεθνήκει yap" ἀμὰ καθὸ οὐκ ἐμ-
φέρεται τῇ γραφῇ τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ, iy’ ἐντεῦθεν ἔχοιμεν
γινώσκειν, πότε ἡ ἱερωσύνη αὐτοῦ ἐπαύσατο. Upon the
whole, great judgment must be used in the adjust-
ment of the type and anti-type.

4. θεωρεῖτε---πατριάρχης. After having adapted
the figure to the reality, i.e. the things of Mel-
chisedec to Christ, he shows that the ficure, or type
(Melchisedec) is of greater dignity than those really
Priests among the Jews, nay, even their Patriarch
himself. But if the type be greater than these, how
much more will the reality, even the High Priest
Christ ? (Theophyl.)

Θεωρεῖτε, “ consider well, attentively reflect.” Ὁ

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 459

πατριάρχης, “ the founder of the nation.” So Philo:
ἀρχηγὸς τοῦ ἔθνους, & πολλών ἔθνων πατήρ. On the
ἀκροθινία the moderns are not agreed whether we are
to understand the whole of the spoils taken from the
enemy, or only those which had fallen to the share
of Abraham, as chief. The former is the opinion of
Hamm., Raphel, Kypke, Ernesti, Carpzov, and Mi-
chaelis. And this Philo and Josephus seem to coun-
tenance, by only using the general term λεία. But
for this sense there is no direct authority ; and as to
the thing itself, probability is adverse to it. I am
therefore inclined to adopt the interpretation of
Chrys. and Theophyl., and also of most moderns,
who take ἀκροῦ. in its most usual sense, as denoting
the τὸ ἐξαιρετὸν, or that which fell to his share as
chief; of which the tenth was offered by Abraham.
Thus δεκάτην ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων will mean dex. ἐκ (πάν-
των) τῶν ἀκροθινίων, i.e. all that he possessed. The
word (as we learn from the Etym. Mag.) was origi-
nally used to denote the top of a heap of corn, from
which a certain portion was taken as an ἀπαρχή.

5. καὶ of pev—avrov. The Apostle now proves
the superiority of Melchisedec to Abraham, by his
paying tythe to him. For the Levitical Priesthood
taking tythes of the people is an argument of their
superiority to the people; as is therefore Melchi-
sedec’s taking tythe of Abraham of his ‘superiority
to the Patriarch, and consequently of Christ, the
true High Priest, to all. (Thecphyl.)

᾿Εντολὴν ἔχουσιν. The Commentators supply the
article, ““ the commandment.” They might have
compared Joh. 19, 7. νόμον ἔχομιν, &e. ᾿Αποδεκατοῦν
τὸν λαὸν, to tythe, i.e. take or receive tythes. This
sense of the word is rare (for elsewhere in the New
Testament it signifies to pay tythes); but Heinr.
adduces an example from 1 Sam. 8, 15. Heb. ty.
and Nehem. 10, 87. Κατὰ νόμον. So Joh. 19, 7.,
just cited. At the words τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς atrav—
᾿Αβραὰμ, some modern Commentators stumble, as
does also Rosenm. But there is no difficulty, if the

460 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

mode of interpretation of Theophyl., above cited, be
adopted. And in the same way they are explained
by the best recent Commentators.

6. ὁ d€—edacyyxe. The Apostle here argues the
superior dignity of Melchisedec to Abraham, from
ais having, though not of the priestly or Abrahamic
race, taken tythes of him, and asked a blessing upon
him, though he had the promises, namely, that in
him should all the families of the earth be blessed.
It is strange that none of the Commentators should
have compared Gal. 3, 16. “to Abraham and his
seed were the promises made.”

7. χωρὶς δὲ πάσης---εὐλογεῖται. The δὲ is argu-
mentative, and may be rendered now. Χωρὶς πάσης
ἀντιλογίας, ““ beyond all dispute.”~ Theophyl. ex-
plains ἀναντιῤῥητῶς. In the τὸ ἔλαττον the Commen-
tators remark the use of the neuter for the mascu-
line; an idiom frequent in the Scriptural and Clas-
sical writers. But they do not notice that this may
often be traced to some cause apart from elegance of
diction. Here, considering how jealous the Jews
were of the dignity of Abraham, we may well ascribe
it to delicacy.

At edaoy. the Commentators stumble; as they do
also at the position. But the difficulty is of their
own making, and results from their unwarrantable
lowering of the sense of εὐλογ. just before. Besides,
the position is popular, and not to be pressed. [{ is
to be understood of what is usually the case. So
Theodoret explains: of peifous εὐλογεῖν τοὺς ἐλάττους
εἰωθβάσι. Theophyl. well adds: κρείττων ἄρα καὶ ὃ
Μελχ. ὁ τὸν Χριστὸν προτυπών τοῦ πατριαρχου.

8, καὶ ὧδε μὲν----ϑῆ. It is well observed by Carpz.
and Dind., that the ὧδε and ἐκεῖ are not (as some
say) particles of place ; but the former signifies hic
quidem, and is opposed to ἐκεῖ de, allic autem: a bre-
vity by which a repetition of the whole sentence from
ver. 5 and 6 is avoided. °“Qde, i. 6. in the Levitical
Law. So Theophyl.: ἐν τῷ νόμω. ᾿Αποθνήσκοντες, 1. 6.
persons who die, and are therefore only life pos-

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 461

sessors. Exe? δὲ, i. 6. in the passage of Genesis, in
the history of Melchisedec. (So Dind.and Rosenm.),
or (as Theophyl. explains) ἐν τῷ πράγματι κατὰ τὸν
~Meay. The sense of 9ῇ depends upon the interpre-
tation, supra ver. 3.

9. Kal, ws ἔπος----δεδεκάτωται. To preclude the
objection that might possibly be started by the
Priests of the Law, ‘*‘ And what is that to us, if
Abraham paid tythes:” the Apostle says that, through
the medium of Abraham, even Levi paid tythes,
Levi the origin of the Priesthood, and who received
tythes. Is not then Melchisedec greater than Levi,
as, in a manner, receiving tythes of him, through
the medium of Abraham? (Theophyl.) A some-
what bold argument, but very well suited to those
whom the Apostle is addressing. For (to use the
words of Jaspis) as the property of the parent is
called the property of the children, so the Jews,
whatever belonged to Abraham, considered as be-
longing to themselves, since for Abraham’s sake God
had promised he would bless his seed.

It is strange that so many moderns should render
the ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν summatim, or, “ to say the truth,”
quite contrary to the perpetual use of this common
phrase ; and that, from a fear lest the usual sense
should compromise the Apostie’s character. It is,
however, not only most agreeable to the context,
but is supported by the united authority of the
most eminent antients and moderns. See Theophyl.
and the sensible note of Mr. Slade.

10. ἔτι yap—Meay. The phrase ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ
πατρὸς ἦν signifies that Levi, and consequently the
whole Sacerdotal tribe of Levi, were, though not
ἐνεργείᾳ, yet δυνάμει, in the loins of Abraham and
their Fathers. (Rosenm.)

11. εἰ μὲν οὖν----λέγεσθαι ;

The Apostle now proceeds to urge ἃ new argument. (See the
plan of the chapter.) Here the connection and course of reasoning
is obscure ; but of the accounts both of the antients and moderns,

the following I conceive to be the best. First of Theophyl. (from
Chrys.): "Εδειξεν, ὅτι ὁ Μελχισεδὲκ πολὺ βελτίων ἦν καὶ τοῦ

ey

4.62 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

Αβραὰμ Kat τοῦ Λευὶ, ἐν τάξει ἱερέως αὐτὸς γενόμενος. Νῦν αὖθις
ἕτερον ἐπιχείρημα εἰσάγει, δεικνὺς ὅτι ἡ κατὰ Χριστὸν ἱερωσύνη
πολλῷ ὑπερέχει τῆς τῶν Λευΐτων' καὶ ὅτι ἡ μὲν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τελεία,
ἡ δὲ ἐκείνων ἀτελής καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἦν τελεία ἡ νομικὴ ἱερωσύνη, κατὰ
τὴν τάξιν Ααρὼν ἔδει ἀναστῆναι ἱερέα" 6 γὰρ Aapwy τῆς Λευϊτικῆς
ἦν φυλῆς" ᾿Αλλὰ μὴν οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ααρὼν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν
Μελχισεδὲκ, λέγεται ἄνιστασθαι ἱερεύς" Λοιπὸν οὖν, ὡς ἀτελοὺς
οὔσης ἐκείνης, ἀλλὰ ἀντεισάγεται. Dind. explains as follows : ‘* The
Apostle had evinced by a comparison between Melchisedec and the
Levitical Priest, that these were far inferior to him, and so their
priesthood was removed at a great distance from his. Since, however,
it would not follow, (what he now proceeds to show,) that another
priesthood was to be put in the place of the Levitical; (for perhaps
both might stand together, one in heaven, where Christ is, the
other on earth, by aconstant Levitical succession ;) he shows that by
the Levitical Priesthood that was not effected which ought to have
been effected, and therefore it was no longer of any use ; and thus
also the institutes and laws of the Mosaic religion, which were con-
nected with that Priesthood, must likewise fall to the ground.”

Ei μὲν----ἦν, literally, “if there had been any perfecting of what
was proper by the Levitical priesthood,” i. 6. as Rosenm. explains,
<‘if the Levitical Priesthood had done what it ought, namely,
brought expiation, peace, holiness, and felicity, &c. And so Dind.
in an able note. Other Commentators, however, take τελ. in ano-
ther sense, to denote expiation by sacrifices, or moral perfection, or
complete happiness: all liable to objection, and little agreeable to
the’context.

Of {the words ris ἔτι χρεία---λέγεσθαι the simple sense (as Ern.,
Dind., and Rosenm. are agreed) is this: ‘* what need was there
that it should be abolished and another put in its place.” For (as
Rosenm., observes) the Apostle urges the words of the Psalm. κατὰ
τὴν τάξιν Medy., in order to evince that a Levitical Priest is not
promised.” With respect to ἀνέστασθαι ἱερέα, it signifies to be
raised to the Priesthood ; as Exod. 1,16. Acts7,18. For (as Grot.
and Dind. observe) ἀνίστασθαι and myp are used of those who are
placed in offices of importance and dignity. Aéyeoar, be called,
namely, in the Psalm. But we must not overlook the parenthetical
clause ὁ λειὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νεγομοθέτητο, where some difficulty and
uncertainty exists, owing to the extreme brevity with which it is
expressed. The words are thus explained by Theoph. : ὥρισθε ὥστε xe-
χρῆσθαι αὐτῇ, καὶ dv αὐτῆς ἅπαντα πράττειν. In nearly the same
manner Carpz. explains, whom see. The best of the later Com-
mentators think that the ἐπὶ expresses condition, i. e. ‘* on condition
of being subject to.” Perhaps the two significations may be united.
The use of νομοθ. in the passive is rare: yet Wets. adduces an ex-
ample from Demosth. c. Timarch.: τὰ ἐπὶ τῷ πλήθει νενομοτεθη-
péva δεινὰ. It is rendered by Dine. juberi ex lege, impelli ad ali-
quid vi legis, to be legislated. ‘The Commentators adduce examples
from Philo. In the ἔτι there is an elegance; and it is found ina
passage of Sext. Emp. cited by Wets.

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 4.63

12, μετατιθεμένης ---- γίνεται. The sense here is
nearly the same as at ver. 11. ‘If the Levitical
Priesthood be changed, there is a change of the reli-
gion itself. For the ceremonial is contained in the
Levitical form of worship; so that without them the
Mosaic Law could not even be understood. There-
fore the priesthood falling, the Law must fall with
it. (Dind.) Μετατίθεσθαι signifies simply to be
changed ; nor is there (as Krebs fancies) an allusion
to playing at dice, or drafts. By μεταῦ., Rosenm.
observes, is meant a passing of the priesthood to one
not a descendant of Aaron; which the Psalm pre-
dicts would be. Νόμου, sc. ἱερατικοῦ.

13. The Apostle now confirms the abrogation of
the Priesthood by two arguments; 1. that Christ
was descended not from the tribe of Levi, but of
Judah, of which no one has hitherto held a sacred
Office. (Dind.) ᾿Εφ᾽ ὃν---τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, ““ Jam vero
is, de quo illa (in Psalmo) dicuntur, alia de stirpe
natus est, &c. Illud γὰρ eo pertinet, ut, preestructis,
que oportebat jam ostendat, sensum Psalmi_ illius
omnibus partibus in Jesum Nazarenum competere.
(Rosenm., from Grot.) Eq’ ὃν, “ super quem,” “ de
quo.” So Theophyl.: περὶ οὖ. Meréyew signifies “ to
have any thing in common with another,” be a par-
taker with any, and a member of any body of men.
Munthe compares Diodor. Sic. 127. per. τῆς παρα-
λίου, ““ to be of the maritime district.” Προσέσχηκε
τῷ Θεῷ, sub τὸν νοῦν, ““ has attended to, devoted him-
self to the care of.” The Greeks frequently say
προσέχειν πελάγῳ, &c.; and Thucyd. 1, 15. προσεχ.
τοῖς ναυτικοῖς, Others render, appropinquare, operam
dare alicui. ‘The various readings here have arisen
from gloss, or misapprehension.

14. πρόδηλον---ἐλάλησε. It is rightly thought by
Dind., that there is no difference between προδ. here
and κατάδηλον at ver. 15. Yet the prepositions with
with which δῆλος is compounded have all, properly,
an intensive force ; and προδῆλος seems literally to sig-

464. HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

nify the being plain at first sight. ᾿Δνατέταλκεν. This
is supposed by Theophyl. to be an allusion to the
prophecies concerning the star to arise from Jacob,
even the Sun of righteousness. But the best mo-
derns are agreed that the allusion is rather to the
springing up of plants, (like the Hebrew rmx in Jer.
23,5.) So in the Old Testament the Messiah is
often called a max, or plant. And Carpz. compares
a similar use of ἔρνος and θάλος by the Classical
writers, of heroes and illustrious persons. Eis ἥν.
Like ἐφ᾽ ὃν at ver 13. ‘* Moses (explains Rosenm.)
had said nothing about a Priest being chosen from
the tribe of Judah. It follows, therefore, from the
Psalm, that another law is to be substituted for the
law of Moses.”

15, 16. καὶ περισσότερον--- ἀκαταλύτου. The Apos-
tle now urges also the words of the Psalm, in which it
is said that the promised Priest would be a Priest for
ever. (Rosenm.) ‘The sense is: ‘‘ And what I said
(namely, that the Priesthood of Christ is far superior
to that of Aaron, and that the law is te be changed,)
is yet more plain, since such another Priest is pro-
mised like unto Melchisedec, who is not made such
by the force of a human law, but that which reaches
unto immortality.” The περισσότερον ἔτι καταδ.
Commentators compare with a Rabbinical form of
transition to another argument, WIA WW. Εἰ, si-
guidem, or rather quod, like the N; as Acts 90, 8.,
and sometimes in the Classical writers. See Schleus.
Lex. Dindorf. renders it guandoquidem and quoniam.
᾿Ανίσταται, “there is to arise.” “Os οὐ κατὰ νόμον ἐν-
τολῆς σαρκικῆς. ‘The κατὰ signifies per, through, by
the force of. ‘The σαρκικ. is taken by the best later
Commentarors to mean caducum, debile, quod homini-
bus mortalibus convenit, failing and perishable, en-
during only for atime. And they take νόμον ἐντο-
λῆς for ἐντολ. itself, lex quce constat preescripto. Per-
haps, it may be rendered, by a law of fleshly com-
mand,” 1. 6. a law suitable only to mortals. Κατὰ δύ-

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 465

ναμιν ϑωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, “by the force of immortal life,”
i. 6. that the Priest to be created is to be immortal.
And such a power hath Christ.

Various, however, are the opinions in this verse,
which may be seen in Pole, Carpz., Dindorf, and
Braun.

147 Μαρτυρεῖ---Μελχισεδέκ. At μαρτυρεῖ some sup-
ply David; others (more properly) ἡ γραφὴ, 1. 6. the
Holy Spirit, or God speaking by him. As to the
var. lect. μαρτυρεῖται, it seems to be a mere paradior-
thosis. Heinr. and Rosenm. observe, that the nervus
probationis is in εἰς τὸν αἰώνα ; for it was to be proved
that Jesus is a priest κατὰ δύναμιν ξωῆς ἀκαταλύτου,
1. 6. αἰώνιον.

18, 10. ἀθέτησις---τῴ Θεῴ.

Thus far he has shewn that a change of the law is to be made;
now he subjoins a reason for this change of law. (Dind.) The
sense is: ‘‘ ‘There is implied in these words an abolition and abro-
gation of the preceding law, because of its weakness and uselessness
(for the purpose of real expiation.)” ᾿Αθέτησις signifies a setting
aside, or abolition of a law by the same authority that instituted it.
And ἀθέτησις γίνεται is for ἀθετεῖται. ‘Theophyl. explains: ἐναλ-
λαγὴ καὶ ἐκβολή. Τὸ ἀσθ. and τὸ ἀνωφελές, are adjectives neuter
for substantives. The ἀσθενὲς, Dind. observes, answers to σαρκικὸν.-
It signifies (as the Commentators explain) weak, as being insuffi-
cient to produce holiness and confer expiation. Aud Theophyl.
well remarks, that it was so, as consisting wholly of precepts
and prohibitions, without ministering any power for the perform-
ance of what was commanded, such as we have by the Holy Spirit.”
The ἀνωφελές (all Commentators are agreed) is to be taken com-
paraté. So Theophyl.: ὠφέλησε μέν" ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ποιῆσαι τελείους
οὐκ ὠφέλησεν. The Apostle explains himself in the words following,
οὐδὲν yap ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, Where the Commentators, antient
and modern, consider the neuter as put for the masculine ; which
yields a good sense; but perhaps there is also an allusion to the
works themselves. See the note, supra ver. 7. The reason, Carpz.
observes, is, that in the law there is no justification. See Rom. 7.
and 8. For neither can the moral law make us holy, nor the cere-
monial expiate our sins.”

The clause following ἐπεισαγωγὴ--- Θεῷ, is obscure, by being
worded in a refined rather than a popular manner. The sense
partly depends on the construction. A verb is left to be supplied.
Most Commentators repeat ἐτελείωσεν ἡμᾶς ; as if this clause were
antithetical to the one which immediately preceded. But as the
preceding is a parenthetical explanation of the ἀσθ. and ἀνωφ., it
is not probable that the Apostle would extend the sentence to Θεῷ,
And thus, too, something is left wanting to correspond to the

VOL. VIIL 2H

466 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

ἀθέτησι-ς---ἐντολῆς. 1 therefore agree with many eminent moderns,
that this clause is the antithesis to that; and γίνεται is to be re-
peated ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. This too, is supported by some antients. So
Scbol. Matth.: ἐπεισάγεται δὲ ἡ τῶν κρειττόνων ἐλπίς. And Theo-
phyl.: ἠθετήθη ἡ νομικὴ, ἐπεισήχθη δὲ ἔλπις, ἅς. ᾿Ἐπεισαγωγὴ
signifies introduction. It is said to be ἃ rare word. The Commen-
tators have, however, adduced one example from Joseph. Ant. 11,
6, 3., to which [ add ‘Thucyd. 8,92. I would also compare a simi-
lar expression in Eurip. Hel. 1037. εἰσφέρεις yap ἐλπίδας. By the
ἐλπίδος is meant, not the author of hope (as Rosenm. explains), but
the hope of salvation held forth in the Gospel, and introduced by
Jesus, by which (the Apostle adds) we (alone) have approach to
God, namely, with a hope of acceptance, through our great mediator
Jesus. For such appears to be the force of éyyé., which the Soci-
nians most unwarrantably pare down, and others as Braun, &c.,
extend too far. ‘Theophyl. aptly adduces the preceding, εἰσερχομένην
eis τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος.

20—22. Here we have a third argument, directly
proving the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, from
the oath, or solemn asseveration, that it would be
perpetual. (Dindorf.) Now Christ being made
priest by the interposition of an oath, is greater than
the Aaronitish priests, who are made such without
an oath. ‘The very use of an oath implies something
of high importance, and therefore shows the august
dignity of Christ’s priesthood. (Ern.) The words
may be literally rendered: ‘And (there is this
argument too, that) inasmuch as he was made a
priest not without an oath, (for those have been
made priests without an oath, but he with an oath,
even that of him who said unto him, “The Lord
hath sworn and will not repent,” &c.), in just so
much, (so far, or thus,)is he made the mediator of a
better covenant.” In the οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας, there
is an elegant litotes: and γέγονε ἱερεὺς is to be sup-
plied from ἱερεῖς yeysvores, within the parenthesis; an
irregularity indeed, but often found in Thucyd. and
all writers who, from a superabundance of matter
and an anxiety to bring out the sense in the fewest
words, make long and involved sentences; of which,
I would observe, Lord Clarendon is the most remark-
able modern example.

Ὁρκωμοσία signifies literally oath-swearing. It is
arare word, though found in Ez. 17,18 & 19. 3 Esdr.

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 407

8,95. Schleus. compares the similar forms ἀπωμοσία,
ἐπωμοσία, κατωμιοσία, συνωμιοσία. The Classical
writers use ὀρκωμόσιον, but in the tense covenant, or
treaty sanctioned by oath, and sometimes the sacri-
fice which accompanied it. Teyovsres is taken by the
Commentators for γεγόνασι. But it may be a nomi-
nativus pendens.

22, éyyvos. This (Dind. observes) is used for the
more Classical ἐγγυήτης and ἐξέγγυος ; and signifies
a sponsor, vas, pres, fide jussor, one who promises,
engages, and answers for another, or is surety for
him. Some recent Commentators render it auctor.
But this is letting the significancy of the term eva-
porate. It is by many rendered mediator, (and so
Theophyl. μεσίτην) ; as, supra, 6, 17., Christ is said
ὅρκῳ μεσιτεύειν. And such is the name assigned to
him infr. 8, 6. 9,15. Now the various senses of
ἔγγυος have alla reference to the different parts of
Christ's work, in being our mediator, and procuring
our salvation, especially that of shedding his blood
by dying, in order thus inauguraret foedus, as Ro-
senm. expresses it. See more on this important
subject in Carpz.

The force of διαθήκη has been before explained ;
and the superiority of the new to the old covenant
is too obvious to need treating on. See the Com-
mentators.

23, 24. καὶ of pev—mrapapevery. Another point of
superiority in Christ over the high priest of the law
is now touched on, namely, that the Levitical high
priesthood (for ἱερεῖς is put for apyiep.) was held only
by a succession of different persons (above seventy,
as we are told, up to the destruction of Jerusalem) ;
since those were mortal; but in the new covenant
there is only one Christ ; because he is immortal.
᾿Απαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην, ‘he holds his priest-
hood in eternal continuity, without having to trans-
mit it to a successor.” For that is the force of ἀπα-
ράβατον (and so the Syr., Grot., and Braun.), since
the office (as Dind. explains) has not to pass ex de-

eessore ad successorem. Dind., moreover, remarks
ane

4.68 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

that ἀπαραβ. is used by the Classical writers to de-
note immutable; which comes to the same thing,
It is explained by Hesych. ἀσειστὸν ; by Theophyl.
ἀδιάκοπον, ἀδιάδοχον; by Gicumen. ἀτέλευτον (1 con-
jecture ἀτελεύτητον) ; and by the Vulg. sempiternum.
‘Thus (observes Theophyl.) Christ is as superior as
immortality is superior to mortality.” It is well
remarked by Rosenm.: “ Sacerdotium ejus primum
est in suo genere, et item ultimum. Hactenus au-
tem seternus sacerdos dicitur Christus, quatenus
nune, postquam in celum abiit, nobis salutifer est.
Hoc statim v. 25. aliis verbis repetitur.”

φῦ, tev—@cw. ‘This is, in some measure, exege-
tical of the preceding verse. On σώϑειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς
Commentators differ in opinion. Some include tem-
poral salvation ; which may be admitted, but it was
probably not here in the mind of the Apostle. Παν-
'τελῶς is explained by some antients and many emi-
nent moderns as synonymous with εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς,
especially on account of the πάντως following. And
so Chrys. and Theophyl. explain: ‘‘both in this
world, and in the next.” Others, as Braun and Els-
ner, contend that it must mean omnino, prorsus, 1. e.
perfectim, to the uttermost. And this yields a sense
far more extensive and worthy of the Apostle; espe-
cially since (as Braun has suggested) there is an op-
position between the Levitical priesthood and Christ.
Perhaps, however, the above interpretations may be
united.

The προσερχομένους is to be understood like the
ἐγγίϑομιεν at ver. 19. And the ἐντυγχάνειν expresses
the whole of the mediatorial office expressed in the
ἔγγυος at ver. 22, On the expression ἐντυγχάνειν τινι
it is observed by Morus ap. Rosenm.: ‘ dicitur de
eo qui presens, absens, ulla de caussa cum altero
agit et tractat aliquid; et quot de caussis, quot item
modis cum altero agit, tot significationibus variatur
vis hujus verbi, adeoque de deprecante, commen-
dante, se alterius caussa interponente, accusante,
defendente, paciscente dicitur.”

2 τοιοῦτος γὰρ--- γενόμενος, “Such an one as high

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. 4.09

priest it was suitable and fitting should be given to
us.” On the ἔπρεπεν see Ernesti. Ὅσιος, pious,*
holy, ἄκακος, blameless of all evil. And from the ge-
ral use of the word, there may be an allusion (as
Theophyl. thinks) to his being devoid of guile and
malice (as 1 Pet. 2, 22.), ἀμιαντὸς, unstained with
vice. And so of Christ it is said, ““ He did no sin.”
Of this term Classical examples are adduced by
Wets. Κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλών, 1. 6. not
only far removed from any resemblance to sinners,
but from any society with them. So Braun, Carpz.,
and Camer. ὝὙψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος. In
the interpretation of this phrase some moderns,
especially the recent Commentators, run into most
wild speculations, which I shall not detail. On the
other hand, Braun, by seeking in every one of these
epithets a correspondence to the case of the Jewish
high priests, entangles himself in interminable dis-
cussions. It seems better to imitate the prudence
of the antients, who recognise no more in the words
than a phrase denoting exalted dignity and majesty

at the right hand of God. (Compare Col. 8, %. and

Eph. 4, 10.) And so the most judicious of the mo-
dern Commentators. With respect to the compari-
son which Braun has drawn between those qualities
of the great high priest and those which were re-
quired in the Jewish high priests, though I cannot

but think the Apostle had a general allusion thereto,’

yet not (I conceive) to the extent which that learned
and ingenious, but too fanciful, writer supposes. It
is manifest that all this is spoken of the human nature
of our Lord.

Q7. ὃς οὐκ ἔχει---λαοῦ. On the force of καθ᾽ ἡμέραν
the Commentators are much at issue. Lachmacher
takes it of the day of expiation κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, with a
subaudition of τεταγμένην. But this is too arbitrary
an ellipsis to deserve notice. Others (as Rosenm.)
interpret it sepenumero, quandocunque res postulat.

* This, Ernesti observes, denotes both the holiness of his nature
and his actual holiness as a man, in that he did no sin.

470 HEBREWS, CHAP. VII.

But. this is unauthorized, and merely a device to
avoid the difficulty. The phrase can only mean
every day (for ἑκάστην must be supplied); as it is
taken by the antients and the most eminent moderns.
(See Lim)., Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, and Mich.) It
is supposed to have reference to the daily offering
enjoined at Levit. 6, 20. (See Braun.) And Dind.
observes that from Levit. 4, 3., Theodoret, and
Maimonides, we learn that the High Priest every
day offered up a sacrifice or NOM for his own sins
and those of the people. And Philo, 505., among
the daily victims, reckons that ἥν ὑπὲρ αὐτών avayou-
σιν οἱ ἱερεῖς, καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους. Itis here observed
by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Facit ad nostram tranquillitatem,
quod Pontifex noster non debuit pro se sacrifium
offerre; nam ex eo discimus, eum omnia nostri
caussa et commodo nostro fecisse atque tulisse.”

27. τοῦτο yap ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας,
““ For this (latter) he did once for all, when he offered
himself up to death (as a sacrifice for the expiation
of human sin), and therefore he had no occasion to re-
peat it (and as to the former, he needed it not, being
free from all sin).’’ Such a clause must be sup-
plied to complete the sense. That the τοῦτο yap, &c.
must be referred to what immediately precedes, is so
plain that none but those who wish to deceive them-
selves can come to any other conclusion. ‘The per-
versions cf the Socinians here, and throughout the
Epistle, are ably confuted by Braun. With respect
to the ἐφάπαξ, once for all (as Rom. 6, 10.), it is op-
posed to the καθ᾽ ἡμέραν. ᾿Αναφέρειν and προσφέρειν
are sacrificial terms.

Q8. ὃ νόμος γὰρ---τετελειωμιένον. Here is subjoined
the reason for the difference said to exist between the
Levitical Priests and Christ, our High Priest. ‘The
sense is: “ For the law maketh men High Priests,
who (themselves) have weakness (i.e. frailty) and
consequently sin (and therefore can, per se, offer no
expiation) ; but the promise of oath (i.e. the sworn
promise) which was subsequent to the law (appoints)

HEBREWS, CHAP. VII. VIII. 471

the Son, who is supremely perfected, and exalted for
evermore.” The λόγος τῆς ὀρκωμοσίας is illustrated
by Ps. 110. The μετὰ τὸν νόμον, “ after the promul-
gation of the law,” is supposed to refer to the time of
David. See also Dindorf. On the sense of rerea.
Commentators are not agreed. Carpz. and Rosenm.
think there is a reference to the ἱερεῖον τελειωσέως,
the victim of perfection and consecration mentioned
by Philo, 676 a. Schleus. takes it to mean “ raised
to exaltation at the right hand of God.’’ I prefer
the sense assigned by Braun and Dind., consummate,
perfect, and who can therefore, by his own merits,
perfectly expiate. However, the interpretation of
Carpzov. may be conjoined. Ernesti explains it,
“immortal and exalted to the right hand of God.”
It is, however, not improbable that the term com-
prehends nearly al/ these and other senses assigned,
as including a constellation of all the excellences
that can be conceived, for the purpose above men-
tioned.

Theophyl. well points out the force of the anti-
theses thus: "Exe? νόμος, ἐνταῦθα λόγος ὁρκωμοσίας,
τουτέστι, βεβαιότατος, ἀληθέστατος" ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωποι δούλοι
πάντως" ἐνταῦθα υἱὸς, δεσπότης δηλαδή: ἐκεῖ ἀσθενεῖς,
τουτέστι, προσπταίοντες, ἁμαρτίαν ἔχοντες, θανάτῳ ὑπὸ
κείμενοι" ἐνταῦθα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμιένος, τουτέστιν,
ἀΐδιος, δυνατὸς, οὐ νῦν μόνον ἀναμάρτητος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ.

CHAP. VIII.

This Chapter commences with two propositions :
Ist, Christ is also High Priest in heaven. For in
heaven is the true sanctuary ; whereas the sanctuary
on earth contains merely an adumbration of the
celestial sanctuary; in heaven is the true tabernacle
of God; whereas, in the temple and tabernacle on
earth was only a shadow of the celestial tabernacle.
2dly, Since Christ is High Priest also in heaven, he
must have some victim to offer up to God, and this
victim is better han the Levitical ones. (Ernesti.)

472 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII.

It is now shown that Christ may be called High
Priest, because he has really performed all the offices
of a High Priest, and has discharged much more
exalted sacerdotal offices, inasmuch as his own priest-
hood is far more excellent, and of infinitely greater
dignity than Aaron’s. For Christ is a Priest in
heaven, not on earth. (Dind.)

1. κεφάλαιον de, Χο. On the sense of κεφάλαιον
Commentators are not agreed. Most of the early
ones render: ‘ summa, vel elenchus est.” Most of
the later ones, “ caput rei est.” Either signification
is supported by authority (see Wetstein’s examples) ;
but the latter seems the more agreeable to what fol-
lows: for (as Dind. observes) there is no recapitula-
tion there to be found. It is, moreover, supported
by the antients. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : ke-
ᾧάλαιον ἀεὶ τὸ μέγιστον ests. And then he states the
sense thus: Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομιένοις, τουτέστιν,
ἵνα εἴπω τὸ μέγιστον καὶ συνεκτικώτερον, Θεὸν ἔχομεν
ἀρχιερέα. In some measure, however, the two signi-
fications merge into each other, and the former may
relate to what precedes ; the latter to what follows.

On τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης I have before treated.

2. τῶν ἁγίων----ἄνθρωπος, ‘* A minister of the sanc-
tuary which God made (i.e. in heaven), and not
man.’ On λειτουργὺς, which is rendered, by Ernesti,
antistes sacrorum publicus, see the note on Rom.
13, 6. 15, 16. Phil.2, 25. By the ἁγία is meant the
sanctum sanctorum ; and, considering that the noun
closely united with it (namely σκηνῆς) has affixed to
it the epithet ἀληθινῆς (like ἄρτος ἀληθινὸς in Joh. 6,
32.), true and worthy of the name, it seems that that
epithet may also be mentally extended to ay., and
both &y. and ox. be so called, as being heavenly, and
therefore truly such, in opposition to the earthly
ones, which were only shadows of the heavenly.
ἜἜπηξεν, pitched, i.e. made. The term is accommo-
dated to the opposite, namely, the earthly tabernacle.
On the nature of Christ’s Priesthood see c. 7. On
the subject of the accommodation of the sentiment

HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 473

to Jewish opinions, the recent Commentators run
into very wild speculations, and seem to have yet to
learn ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ σωφρονεῖν. Ae:

3. πᾶς γὰρ---προσενέγκε. Dind. thinks this is an
answer to the objection, that Christ had never in his
life discharged the sacerdotal office. It is observed
by Rosenm., that he here shows why he said λειτουρ-
yos; namely, because such is every High Priest.
It is therefore necessary that Christ, whom the Psalm
calls a Priest, and one, indeed, far more excellent
than the Mosaic ones, should have somewhat to offer.
What that #his he tells us at 9, 2.; namely himself,
by whom we attain remission of sins, and eternal
salvation.

4, 5. εἰ μὲν γὰρ---ἐπουρανίων. The Apostle here
evolves the notion of High Priest and λειτουργὸς ἐπου-
pavios, brought forward at v.3. At ver. 4. one of these,
namely the ἐπουρ., is explained ab indirecto. After
the words εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν must be supplied ἱερεύς, which
is to be taken for ἀρχιερ. (Carpzov.) ‘The force of
the argument, which is deduced ex absurdo, is this:
“If I were to say that Christ is a Priest on earth, I
should not call him a Priest at all; since such there
are on earth to offer sacrifices; but these are no-
thing compared to the celestial Pontiff; since their
offices are but a faint adumbration of his true priest-
hood in Heaven. (Dind.) Ὄντων ray ἱερέων, ** since
there are already priests there.” οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι
καὶ σκίᾳ λατρέυουσι, who (however) perform the
ministry,” &c. In ὑποδείγματι and σκίᾳ the latter is
exegetical of the former, and properly signifies a

faint sketch, or outline, traced for a painter, or a mo-
del for an architect, who fills up the body or ὑπόστα-
ois of the figure, and complete the work. ‘The pro-
priety and force of the term is obvious. But it is
strange the Commentators should not have seen that
these Datives are put for the Accusative with εἰς.
Tey ἐπουρανίων, scil. μερῶν, i. 6. heaven itself, as Eph.
1, 20. Kalas κεχρημάτισται----ὄρει. The sense is:
‘** As Moses, when about to set up the tabernacle,

474 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII.

was directed by God, See that thou make it after the
model shown to thee in the mount.” On χρηματί-
gecbas, to be Divinely directed, I have before treated.
The phraseology here is well illustrated from the
Rabbins, and Philo, by Braun and Carpzov. The
general sense is thus laid down by Rosenm.: ““ Om-
nia, que in templo tanquam in umbra representan-
tur, ea in ccelo sunt revera. In illo tabernaculo
sanctum sanctorum representat thronum Dei; sed
coelum revera sedes Dei est,” &c.

6. νυνὶ δὲ ---7“νενομοθέτηται. The νυνὶ, Grot. observes,
is not indicative of time, but opposition, i.e. “ ac-
cording as things now are.” So Theophyl.: νυνὶ δὲ
μὴ ὧν ἐπὶ γῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχων, ἕο. Διαφορω-
τέρας τέτευχε λειτουργίας, “ he hath obtained, and
possesses, a more excellent ministry.” At διαῷ. must
be understood τοσούτω, to correspond to the ὅσῳ
just after. The κρείττονος διαθήκης μεσίτης is the
same with the ἔγγυος xg. διαθ. at 7, 22., where see the
note. The Atticterm was μεσέγγυος, which Hesych.
explains μεσίτης. On these terms, and the nature of
the superiority of the New Covenant see Braun and
Carpzov. “Hris νενομοθέτηται, literally, legislated, as
having been established and founded on better pro-
mises. Rosenm. observes that vevoy.. was used rather
than τίθηται, to show that this was at once a covenant
and a daw. Compare 7, 11. In ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν éray-
γελίαις the ἐπὶ denotes condition; and, indeed, this
preposition is often used in speaking of contracts.
The sense therefore will be: sub promissis praestan-
tioribus, “so as to contain better promises.”

7. εἰ γὰρ---τόπος. The argument at 7, 22. is here
pursued, and, from the introduction of a New Co-
venant, it is inferred that the former was insufficient :
a thing which God himself had foreseen, and there-
fore spoke of that new covenant to the first Israelites.
(Dind.) Αμεμπτος, irreproachuble. perfect, i.e.
able to accomplish all the purposes of such a διαβθ.,
and to make men ἄμεμπτοι, to reform, save, and bless
them. See Braun, Limb., and Carpzov. With re-
spect to the words οὐκ dy δευτέρας ἐθητεῖτο τύπος, it is

HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 475

strange the Commentators should not have seen that
two sentences are blended into one, i.e. ““ ἃ second
could not have been sought for,” and, ‘ there would
have been no place for a second.’ It is well ob-
served, by Heinr., that ϑητεῖν τόπον is the Latin cir-
cumspicere.

On the imperfection of the Law see Whitby.

S—12. μεμφόμινος---διαθήκην καινήν.

That the old’Covenant was not perfect, not ἄμεμπτον, is now
proved from a passage of Jeremiah. (Dind.) The μεμφόμενος is,
by most recent Commentators, referred to διαθήκῃ. But, as Heinr.
and Dind. rightly observe, that would have required αὐτῇ to have
been expressed. The antients and early moderns, and, of the re-
cent Commentators, Heinr. and Dindorf, maintain that it must be
referred to αὐτοῖς (of which syntax Raphel and Wets. adduce many
examples) ; and this is required by the words following.

The passage is from Jer. 31, 31—34.; and agrees with the Sept.,
excepting ‘a few minute discrepancies, supposed to have arisen from
citing by memory; but perhaps also attributable to some variation
between the Sept.Version then and at the present time. See Surenh.
βιβ. κατ. 625., and Mr. Horne’s Introd. in loc. Ἡμέραι ἔρχονται.
Present for Future, say the Commentators, But it may be rendered,
“are coming.” Καὶ, when (like the Heb. 1), or more simply, and
(then). Suvreréow, peragam, I will accomplish, form. So Jer, 34,
15. συνετέλεσαν διαθήκην. See Schleus. Lex. Ἔπὶ, super, erga,
Heb. nx, with. Οἶκον, people. Ἰούδα and Ἰσραὴλ Dindorf and
Heinr. take to denote all the Israelites of the twelve tribes; for
Israel did not then exist as a separate kingdom; though it was pro-
bably spoken of separately. And so Pierce, and most of the later
moderns, Yet see Braun and Mackn. Upon the general sense of
the passage see Pierce, Mich., and Rosenm.
᾿ Kara, like unto, 3. Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ, ““ at the time.” *“Ev—adrovs, li-
terally, ‘“ in the day of my taking them by the hand (in order) to
lead them from.” The expression ἐπιλ. χειρὸς is a figure derived
from the simplicity of antient phraseology. At ἐξαγαγεῖν must be
understood eis τὸ or ἕνεκα. Ὅτι οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν, ἄς, The ὅτι
Macko, renders when. But the real sense is that of the common
version, because: for (as Dindorf observes) there now follows the
reason why a new covenant was to be formed, namely, because the
old one was not observed. Ἐμμένειν ἐν denotes ‘* to continue in,
and constantly and habitually observe and do any thing.” It is
often used of covenants. The full sense is: ‘* they did not continue
in the performance of the precepts enjoined in the covenant, and
covenanted to be performed.” Hence, as Rosenm. observes, διαθήκη
sometimes denotes the whole religion. It is then added ἡμέλησα
αὐτῶν, “ I neglected them,” as Mackn. renders. Preferable, how-
ever, is the common version, “1 regarded them not,” or Dod-
dridge’s, ‘‘ I disregarded them.” And the Commentators might

476 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII.

have compared 1 Sam. 2, 30., ‘‘ them that honour me I will honour,
and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed,” where the
Sept. has ἀτιμασθήσονται. There is here an apparent discrepancy be-
tween the ἡμέλησα of St. Paul and the Sept., and the mbya of the
Heb., rendered in our English version (conformably to good autho-
rities), “41 was a husband to them.” But that sense would be very
harsh; and the more profound researches of the great Orientalists
of the last two centuries (who, by uniting a study of the Syriac and
Arabic, and the other sister dialects, with that of the Hebrew, have
thrown so much light on very many obscure passages) here come to
our aid,and inform us that ya, from the use of the Arabic, may mean
fastidire, aversari. And they add, that such is the interpretation.
adopted by the greatest Jewish Expositors, who, besides a know-
ledge of Hebrew, were perfectly versed in the Arabic. See the notes
of Mich. and Dind. Thus all is plain, and the above passage of
i Sam. much confirms the interpretation.

10. ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη. The ὅτι, 95, is by Heinr.
rendered sed; by Carpzov and Rosenm., scilicet ;
which is preferable : but no great stress is to be laid
on the particle. Ausdots (as Ernesti observes) is, after
the Hebrew, put for the Indicative δώσω. But the
Sept. have here expressed a Hebraism which is not
found in our present text, namely {M1 for ΠΣ. The
ἐπιγράψω is very significant: q.d. “ I will cause that
they shall understand and keep in mind my precepts.”
A metaphor of which Carpzov cites an examp!e
from Philo 17 D. ἄνθρωποι γραψάμενοι ταῖς ἑαυτῶν
guyais. And Dind. one from Joseph. c. Ap. 2, 18.,
where he says that the Jews have Moses’s νόμους
eyKeyapaypevous ταῖς ψυχαῖς. 1 add AXschyl. Choeph.
447. τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀκούων ἐν φρεσὶ γράφουι See Rosenm.
The words ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς----λαόν are rightly considered
by Carpzov as a formula solennis, which might be
added in forming any Divine covenant, and which
comprehends all the effects of Divine grace. The
words denote protection and benefits on the one
hand, and obedience and worship on the other.

11. καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν--- αὐτου. The οὐ μὴ διδαξ. is
taken by the best Commentators in the sense, “ they
will have no need to teach.” Some MSS. read (from
the Heb.) διδάξουσιν, “* they will not teach.” The
sense is (as Doddr. observes): ‘they will not teach,
because there will be no need for it.” For. τὸν πλή-

HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. 477

σιον Griesb. edits, from several MSS., τὸν πολίτην.
And so the Sept. And certainly this is more agreeable
to the Scriptural style. Γνώθι τὸν Κύριον is explained
by Dind., ““ embrace the worship of the true God,
as contained in the religion of Moses.” But it seems
rather to refer to what is enjoined on the Israelites,
Deut. 6, '7., to converse on the truths of their reli-
gion in the course of their “ walking by the way,”
doubtless for the purpose of instructing the ignorant.
Now for this, it is predicted, there will be, compara-
tively, no need under the new and better covenant.
By the πάντες ἀπὸ μικροῦ are denoted all, of every age.
A proverbial phrase, signifying all, without exception.

12. ὅτι ἵλεως ἔσομαι---ἔτι. In these words, (Dind.
observes) the other promise, ‘‘ I will be their God,”
is explained; q.d. “1 will be merciful to their of-
fences, and I will no longer remember the sins of
this people.” Ἵλεως, mild, clement, easy to be en-
treated, ready to forgive. Ταῖς ἀδικίαις, 1. 6. to the
persons guilty of, &c. The terms ἅμαρτ. and ἀνομι..
are nearly synonymous. It is observed by Ernesti,
that the latter signifies transgression against the law,
and the former, any transgression. See Ps. 32, 1.
Not to remember sins is a refined way of expressing
forgiveness of them.

13. ἐν τῷ A€yew—ahavicpod. From this prophecy
the Apostle proceeds to prove the abolition of the
old Covenant, and that by a popular argument and
illustration. (Dind.) ‘The words may be rendered
thus: ‘‘ By making mention of a new Covenant, he
represents the former as antiquated. Now what is
antiquated and grown old, weak, and useless, is near
to its end, and ready to be done away.” Such isthe
general sense. With respect to the phraseology,
πρώτην is for προτέραν; so also τελειοῦσθαι (as Ern.
remarks) is properly applicable to things ; and γη-
ράσκειν, to persons: but the terms are often inter-
changed in figurative diction. On the exact nature
of the metaphor in ἀφανισμοῦ the Commentators
differ (see Kypke, Braun, and Carpz.), and come to

478 HEBREWS, CHAP. VIII. IX.

no certain determination. One thing is clear, that
the expression obscurely alludes to that destruction
of the Temple and the Jewish worship which took
place about ten years after. On the nature of the
various changes of the old Covenant see the learned
annotations of Braun.

CHAP. IX.

After the foregoing comparison between the sacer-
dotal office of Aaron and Christ, it will now, ac-
cording to the primary purpose of the Epistle (which
see in the Argument) be shown that all that splen-
dour and magnificence of the Jewish λειτουργία,
which so dazzled, nay blinded the eyes of the Jews,
and which therefore they were so unwilling to lay
aside, is, in the new religion, far more august. From
different parts of Exod. 25—27. Paul shows that the

‘whole Jewish worship was indeed splendid, but only
respected what is external, and was to be repeated
again and again. By the Divine counsel, then, it
was only to last for a time, till the perfect one was
to be introduced ; which was done by Jesus Christ.
(Jaspis. )

Ver. 1. εἴχε----κοσμικόν. It is observed by Doddr.,
that our Translators strangely supply the word cove-
nant instead of tabernacle, whereas most copies read
σκήνη, tabernacle, and that undoubtedly suits the
connection best. But, with his good leave, our
Translators are right, and he is wrong. ‘They did
well in supplying covenant, which the context re-
quires: and they justly considered σκήνη as having
no place; for it is not found in many antient MSS.,
nearly all the Versions, and many Fathers and Greek
Commentators: and such has been the opinion of
almost every Critic for the last two centuries. I
suspect that Doddr. was misled by Whitby and Wolf,
who here warmly defend the σκήνη, but whose judg-
ment, in Critical matters, was but moderate. The

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 479

best Interpreters, from Chrys. to Dindorf, unite in
supplying διαθήκη from the preceding. See Chrys.
and Phot. ap. Gicumen.

1. δικαιώματα λατρείας, the ritual precepts and
constitutions pertaining to the public worship of
God; whatever God ἐδικαίωσεν, was pleased to ap-
point. So Theophyl.: θεσμοὺς καὶ νομοθεσίας. Some,
as Grot., Drus, Camer., Hamm., and Carpz., take
λατρείας for an accusative plural. But this is not so
agreeable to the context. The antient and the best
recent Commentators are agreed that aarp. is the
genitive singular, i. e. ‘the several ordinances of
worship.” ἽΑγιον κοσμικὸν, worldly sanctuary, as op-
posed to the celestial one, or heaven, which is the
seat of God. Other explanations of κοσμ.. are to be
found in the Classical writers; but this seems the
most natural. ‘The Apostle (Carpz. observes.) here
adverts to that first tabernacle of Moses which Philo
665. calls the ἱερὸν dopyrav (Sept. σκήνην τοῦ μαρτυοίου),
afterwards preserved in the treasury of the temple.

2. σκηνὴ γὰρ---ἁγία. These words have more per-
plexed the Commentators than they will confess ;
and have been most strangely rendered by some
Translators. (See the E. V.) The antient and best
moderns, however, are agreed that πρώτη has refer-
ence to place, not time. See Dindorf, and also Ro-
senm., who remarks that the σκήνη was the name
often given to the whole tabernacle or tent, of which
there were two parts, but which were also themselves
rightly termed σκηναὶ, as having each of them their
veil or curtain. Therefore (he adds) the σκήνη πρώτη
is the προτέρα or interior part, to which in the Tem-
ple that, place corresponds, which Philo calls the
πρόναος, 221. The second, on account of its greater
holiness, was termed the Sanctum Sanctorum, to
which, in the Temple, that part corresponded which
was called the 27, literally oracle-place. See Philo
665 c. and 668 c. |

2. ἐν ἣ ἥ τε λυχνία, the candlestick. See Ex. 25, 31
—39. 33, 17—24. and the note of Carpz. Tparefa—

480 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

ἄρτων. This is rendered by the best Interpreters,
the table, and the twelve loaves exposed upon it; 7
πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων being (they say) for of προτίθεντες
ἄρτοι. See Exod. 25, 30. Or, as Braun thinks,
there is an hypallage for ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως ; as
Matt. 12, 44. They are so called (Rosemn. ob-
serves), as being always in sight of the Priests. Yet
it is more natural to suppose them so called, as being
placed before the Lord. And so (I find) Braun,
whom see.

8. μετὰ--- ἅγια ἁγίων, ““ After or beyond the se-
cond veil was the Holy of Holies.”. The Commen-
tators observe that the name καταπέτασμα signified
properly the veil spread opposite the Sanctum Sanc-
torum; and κάλυμα, that turned towards the temple.
See more in Carpz., Dind., and especially Braun.
Such matters of antiquarian research I must de-
cline; and indeed they seem more fitted to trea-
tises on Jewish Antiquities. The reader is referred
throughout this passage to Mr. Horne’s Introduc-
tion, and also to the authorities adduced by him.

4, Χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον. The θυμιατ. some
render, “ the = ae of incense.” It is, however, ob-
jected by others, that that cannot here be meant ;
since, as we find from Ex. 30, 1., Philo, Joseph, and
the Rabbins, it stood in the outer tabernacle. ‘They
therefore understand, the golden censer (1. 6. in-
censer), which, they say, was used by the High
Priest every year, on the day of expiation. And they
refer to Levit. 16, 19. So also Deyling Obss. P. 2.
p- 578., Alting, Ern.in loc., and Fisher. But this
interpretation 15 by Rosenm. thought harsh : and he,
in common with some others, as Mich., Heinr., and
Dind., conjectures that the true reading is ἱλαστήριον.
The reader will do well to consult the copious anno-
tation of Dind., who, however, acknowledges that
this is a turbidus locus, quem non facilé quis ad liqui-
dum perducat. And indeed the obscurity of the
passage, together with our imperfect information on
the subject, may prevent it from ever being tho-

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 481

roughly understood; but ignorance is surely to be
preferred to the fancied light of conjecture.

4. περικεκαλυμιμένην πάντοθεν χρυσίω. This cor-
responds to what we find in Philo 668 ο. ἔνδοθεν καὶ
ἔξωθεν κεκρυσωμένη πολυτελώς, ‘richly gilded, inside
and outside.” See also 1050. And so Joseph. Ant.
3, 6, 5. χρυσῷ δὲ τὰ τε ἔντος Kal τὰ ἔξωθεν περιελήλατο
πᾶσα, ὡς ἀποκέκρυφθα τὴν ξύλωσιν. See Braun and
Carpz. It is evident that it was covered with thin
gold plates: a very antient custom, and of which
vestiges are found in the temples of Mexico, Peru,
and elsewhere in America.

Ἔν 4, 1. 6. not σκήνη, as most Commentators sup-
ply, but Bere. And so some antients and most
recent Commentators. And this seems most. suit-
able to the context. Difficulties, however, are by
some raised, and by others solved; on which, see
Dind. On στάμνος see Schleus. Lex. and Exod. 16,
82. Kal ἡ ῥάβδος ᾿Ααρων----διαθήκης. This is not at
variance with 1 Kings 8, 9. and 2 Chron. 5, 16.
where the tables of the above are said to have been
there. Inthe time of Moses (it seems) all three
were there ; but at the time of Solomon, only the
tables. Buxtorf, indeed, Hist. Arc. 7, 72. adduces
Jewish authorities which may induce us to suppose
that there were capsules or representations about the
ark, for the convenience of keeping some of the sacred
ornaments; and it is thought by some that the pot and
the rod were placed in these ledges of the ark ; .and
that when the ark was transported from place to
place, they were removed. This is not improba-
ble; though all is mere conjecture.

On the rest of the verse see Num. 17, 13. and
Exod. 25, 16.40, 20. and Braun, Dind., and Mackn.

5. Ὑπεράνω---ἰλαστήριον, ‘* the cherubims glorious
and resplendent with burnished gold.” (See Exod.
25, 22. and Levit. 16, 2.) So Rosenm. explains.
But considering what we are told in Ps. 80, 1. of the
glory of the Lord dwelling between the cherubims,

VOL. VIII, δι

482 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

it cannot but be supposed there is ἃ reference
thereto; especially as the cherubims were symbols
of the Divine presence. See Whitby, and compare
his references. On the persuasion among all nations
of some particular place being selected by the Deity
for the manifestation of his presence by a visible
glory, see Mackn. and Parkh. Hebr. Lex. v. 295, and
a plate in loco, illustrative of the cherubims. Com-
pare also Ez. 1, 5—10. 10, 14. 41, 18 and 19. Now
these signified the supreme governance of God over
all created things, and his tutelary presence. See
Ex. 25, 22. &c.

5. ἱλαστήριον, cover, or lid, from 955, whence our
verb fo cover. Now this consisted of a sheet of pure
gold, which covered the ark of the covenant, and was
so called, because, on the solemn annual day of ex-
piation, it served to receive the blood of the bullock
sprinkled by the Hight Priest. See Rom. 3, 25. and
the note.

5. πεοὶ ὧν. Dind. supplies δικαιωμάτων λατρείᾳ,
mentioned at ver. 1. But perhaps we may under-
stand both the sacred things above enumerated, and
the services connected with them, or otherwise en-
joined by the Levitical Law. On the ark, tables of
the covenant, and cherubims, see Braun in loc. and
in his Select Sacr. p. 2. Κατὰ μέρος, “in every part,
‘and according to all their allusions and symbols. It
is observed by Theophyl.: ᾿Εμφαίνει ἐνταυθα, ὅτι οὐ
ταῦτα ἦ μόνα τὰ ὁρώμενα, ἀλλ᾽ αἰνίγματά τινα ἦν, ἃ τὸ
θεωρεῖν καὶ ἐξηγεῖσθαι μοικροτέρου δεῖται χρόνου.

6. τούτων δὲ οὕτω κατεσκευασμιένων, © Quum ita se
habeat tentorii exterioris et interioris structura.”
Διὰ παντὸς, scil. χρόνου, perpetually, at all the regular
times of sacrifice, or daily, morning and evening.
The πρώτην σκήνην is to be taken as supra, ver. 2.
᾿Επιτελοῦντες is, as some say, for ποιοῦντες. But it isa
stronger term, and adapted to the λατρείας, which
signifies, as at ver. 1., divine worship.

7. εἰς δὲ---- χωρὶς αἵματος. By the δεύτεραν, or ἐσω-

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 483

τέραν, is meant the adytum. “Ara τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, “once
in the year,* 7202, the 10th of Tisri. See Ex. 30,
10. Levit. 16, 34. Προσῷ. is a sacrificial term,
which has been before treated on. Now these offer-
ings were made first for himself and his own ἀγνόη-
para (as we are told) with the calf’s blood; and
then, for those of the people, with the goat's. By
the ἀγνοήματα are meant properly the sins of igno-
rance, or those proceeding from human inadvertence
and infirmity, and not from deliberation. And so
some Commentators here explain, who include both
offences against the moral, and against the ceremo-
nial law. But the best modern Interpreters are
agreed that the word is here used by euphemism
(with reference perhaps to the term which would be
used by the High Priest in his prayer on the occa-
sion), for sins in general, 1. e. all but those of pre-
sumption, or of a deep dye, and such as the law
punished, or with respect to which it, at least,
allowed no expiation, or sacrifice, to avail; the sins,
negligences, and ignorances, of our Liturgy includes
both. See Grot., Wolf, Munthe, Loesn., and
others, who testify that this sense of the term, and of
its cognate ones ἀγνοία and others, is found not only

* By this, some say, we are not to understand, only once in the
year, but, in one day only. For on that day, the Rabbins tell us,
he entered and departed four times, to bring in singly the batillers,
the incense, the blood of the calf, and of the goat. To this, how-
ever, Ernesti opposes the authority of Levit. 16, 2 and 12., by which
it appears "that he went twice, And a passage of Philo, 1035. is ad-
duced, where it seems he asserted that he only went in once on that
day. But that has been proved not to have come from Philo.
After all, the whole is involved in uncertainty; and possibly the
custom varied at different times. Yet we can hardly suppose that
the High Priest could carry with him αὐ once all that was necessary
for the solemnity of the day.

As to his going alone, on that point all are agreed. See Cunzus.
It may be observed, that the Heathens carried this custom still
further; sometimes not allowing even the Priest to enter the ady-
tum except with his head shrouded. So Pausan. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐκτὸς ὁ
Σωσίπολις ἔχει τιμὰς, καὶ ἐς αὐτὸ ἔσοδος οὐκ ἔστι πλὴν τῇ Oeparev-
οὔσῃ τὸν θεὸν, ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἐφειλκυσμένῃ ὕφος
λευκὸν. :

212

484 ! HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

in the Sept. Version, but the Classical writers.* See
also the excellent notes of Whitby, Hamm., Le
Clerc, and Slade.

8. τοῦτο δηλοῦντος---στασιν. Recitatis cultus Levi-
tici ceremoniis Apostolus docet, quid eo significa-
tum fuerit, et quo modo. Constat enim omnia hec
symbolicé aliud quid innuisse. (Dind.) The sense
is: “The Holy Spirit (by) thus signifying to us that
the way to the Holy of Holies was, while the taber-
nacle had a standing, not yet laid open.”” Ayrotrros,
signifying, declaring. And so Philo frequently, as
cited by the Philologists. Τοῦ πνεύματος ἁγίου, namely,
by Moses. Μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι, ““ not distinctly re-
vealed. Τὴν τών ἁγίων ὁδὸν. By the way being re-
vealed is meant the true and efficacious approach to
God, and the mode of attaining the real ἅγια ἁγίων,
namely, heaven itself. The τῶν ἁγίων, Thopbhyl.,
Grot., and other Commentators observe, is for eis τὰ
ayia. But of this they adduce no example. The
following therefore may be acceptable. Matt. 10, 5.
εἰς ὅδον ἔθνων μὲ ἀπέλθητε. By the ἡ πρώτη σκήνη is
meant the first tabernacle in which the Levitical
worship was performed. ᾿Εχούσης στάσιν. An ele-
gant expression, signifying sometimes no more than
standing, of which the Philologists adduce several
examples; but here (as Dind. rightly observes,) it
has the sense of vigere, valere, permanere. And so
Theophyl. explains: ἕως οὐ κρατεῖ ὃ νόμος, καὶ αἱ Kor’
αὐτὸ λατρείαι τελοῦνται.

9. ἥτις (i. 6. σκήνη πρώτη) παραβολὴ (ἐστιν) εἰς τὸν και-
ρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα. ‘The παραβολὴ is well explained
by Chrys. and Theophyl. τύπος καὶ σκιαγραφίαᾳ. By
Hesych. πραγμάτων ὁμοίωσις. It is opposed to the
τελείωσις of the New Testament. See Cicumen.
Philo calls it ἀλληγορία. See Carpz. and Dind. The
καιρὸν ἐνεστηκότα Rosenm. and Dind. explain as a

* Of this I have noted numerous examples in my reading, of
which I will here adduce a single passage from Thucyd, 6, 89. ἀλλὰ
περὶ ὁμολογουμένης ἁγνοίας οὐδὲν ἂν καινὸν λέγοιτο.

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 485

participle preterite for the present, denoting the
time when the Epistle was writing. For the temple
worship continued till the destruction of the temple
by Titus, when the signs ceasing, the thing signified
must succeed to their place.

9. Kal? ὃν δώρά---λατρεύοντα, “ up to which
time,” &c.; (καιρὸν being understood). Μὴ δυνά-
μεναι τελειῶσι τὸν λατρεύοντα, “ but which cannot
procure the expiation or remission of sins to the
worshipper.” So 7, 19. οὐδὲν ἐτελείωσεν ὁ νόμος, and
10, 1. where is read in some MSS., by a gloss, καθά-
ρισαι, and ver. 14. where Gicumen. explains ἀπήλ-
Aake τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. By τὸν λατρεύοντα is meant, not
the Priest, but the person in whose name the sin
offering was made. ‘The κατὰ συνείδησιν is explained
by Theophyl. κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον. By Rosenm.,
the mind and conscience, i.e. (he adds) so that no
suspicion should rest on the mind that any sin would
be unexpiated. ‘ Now the Hebrews (continues he)
well understood that the dabes animi could not be
expiated by the Levitical ceremonies; and that God
does not delight in gifts and offerings, but in a pure
mind. See Philo. 159 8. This, however, is too
fanciful; and is ascribing to the many the senti-
ments of the enlightened few. ‘There is far more
solidity in the exposition of Braun and Carpz., which
see. ;

10. μόνον---ἐπικείμενα. Now follows the reason
why he had denied the efficacy of oblations and
sacrifices to procure reformation or expiation;
namely, because they consist only in eaternals.
(Dind.) The sense is: and which are so consti-
tuted as to endure, and consist, only until the time
of reformation, as being placed only in meats,” &c.
The ἐπικείμενα is referred to δῶρα: and as δώρα καὶ
θυσίαι preceded, Heinr. thinks it an anacoluthon.
But in such a case the neuter is purposely adopted ;
πράγματα being understood; so that the ἐπικείμενα
is a nominativus pendens.” ᾿Επικεῖσθαι, Dind. ob-
serves, is used of laws; and signifies valere.” Or
rather, to be laid upon, enjoined, and made binding.

486 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

And so itis used sometimes by Thucyd. The ἐπὶ
is rendered by Schlit. and Rosenm. preter. But
Braun and Dind. rightly explain it in, by. So the
Syr... See Hardy, supra. With the βρώμασι and
πόμασι the Commentators are somewhat perplexed.
They are commonly explained by the meats and
drinks forbidden to the Nazareei. But to this it is
objected by Mich., that the passage does not treat
of meats by which any one is polluted, but by which
he is sanctified. ‘Thus he, in conjunction with
Rosenm., refers the words to the eating of meats
which were holy, and a partaking of which was sup-
posed to have a sanctifying influence. See Hos. 8,
15. and Hebr. 18, 9—11. Thus the βρωμ. will de-
note the shew-bread and other oblation food, per-
mitted to the priest, but forbidden to the people ;
and the πόματα, the libations of wine, &c. to be
poured out on the altar; which formed a part of the
sacerdotal office. See Braun in loc.

Δικαιώμασι σαρκὸς. ‘These are explained by Dind.,
from Carpz. and others, the laws and precepts which
pertained to the body and external things (as of the
distinction of meats and drinks, of ablutions, of cer-
tain days), and which therefore could not constitute
innocence, and integrity of mind and conscience ;
though (as Rosenm. adds) they liberated the person
from punishment, and admitted him to the society
of other men.

The καιρὸς διορθώσεως is explained by the best
Commentators, “the period which should introduce a
reformation of religion by the change of external
and corporeal into internal and mental worship.” I
cannot but suspect that the expression was used
with allusion to a common mode of speaking among
the Jews respecting the period of the advent of the
Messiah, at which they expected these blessings, of
moral and religious reformation, as well as political
deliverance, and temporal felicity. On which see
Whitby.

11, 12. Χριστὸς δὲ---άἀγαθῶν. Jam his tanquam in
protasi preemissis sequitur in hac apodosi palmarium

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 487

argumentum, qua Christum meliorem cultum, splen-
didiora et efficaciora sacra induxisse evincit. (Dind.)
It is now shown that by Christ, the author of a more
perfect religion, are produced all those effects which
by the high priests of the New Testament, and by
the Levitical worship, could not be brought about ;
that by him was laid open the way to true and spi-
ritual reformation, peace, and eternal felicity.

Μελλόντων ἀγαθών, i.e. (as the best Commenta-
tors are agreed) spiritual, celestial, and eternal bless-
ings, such as we expect to enjoy perfectly in a future
state only, though commenced in this. Besides, as
Braun observes, they were future as long as Christ
was future, and as long as the Tabernacle and its
worship stood. ‘The nature of them is well stated by
Carpz. and Braun, whom see. With ver. 12—15.
the Commentators might have compared 2 Cor. 4,
18., where see the note.

11. διὰ τῆς μείβονος καὶ τελειοτέρας σκηνῆς. On the
sense of σκηνῆς the Commentators are not agreed.
Many early moderns, as Cajet. and Menoch., and
of the recent ones Braun, take it to mean the
church of the New Testament, i, e. the whole earth.
(See Braun.) The antients, and many moderns, as
Pisc., Beza, Junius, Zeg., Capell., Grot, Hamm.,
and Pierce explain it, the body, or human nature of
Christ; which they support from the verse follow-
ing, ‘* by his own blood.” And indeed that was a.
name often given to the body ; as Joh. 2, 21., where
Christ’s body is called a temple. Grot. observes,
that the Apostle, intending to say that Christ had
entered into the highest heaven, by sufferings and
death, in order that he might pursue the commenced
comparison with the priest of the law, chose to say,
that he entered through his body and through his
blood: for the body may, by metonymy, be put for
the pains of the body; and blood for death is fre-
quent.” Yet this interpretation is somewhat harsh ;
and many objections are made to it by Carpz. The
more recent Commentators, from Wets. downwards,

488 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

are of opinion that the Apostle continues the simili-
tude commenced ; and they take the σκήνην to mean
coelum aérium et wthereum. Thus the ccelum as-
pectabile, they say, was sometimes called by the
Jews the tent of God: and they refer to 8, 2. & 4,
14. They then assign the following sense: ‘As
the high priest of the Old Testament passed through
the first tabernacle, and went to the adytum, so did
Christ, after death and resurrection, pass through
the air to the highest heaven, and sit at the right
hand of God.” I confess I am at a loss to say which
of these two interpretations I prefer. It may be
prudent, with Grot., to unite both, ““ Notandum (says
he), sape eandem rem V. ‘Testamenti ad plures sig-
nificatus referri; ut Pentorium exterius ad _ signifi-
candum ccelum astriferam ejusque effectus; ad
significandum totum cultum legalem ; ad significan--
dum corpus Christi, propter diversa Tentorii illius
accidentia, que commode et huc et illuc referri
poterant.”

The expression χειροποίητος, denotes (as Carpz.
explains) works made by human hands, in opposition
as well to those which seem to exist sud sponte, as
to those which are celestial and divine: both of
which senses are illustrated by Elsner., to whose
examples I add an especially apposite one from Thu-
cyd. 2, 27. ἐγένετο φλὸξ τοσαύτη, ὅσην οὐδεὶς πω ἔς γε
ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον χειροποίητον εἶδεν: ἤδη γὰρ ἐν ὄρεσιν
ὕλη τριφθεῖσα ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμων πρὸς αὐτὴν, ἀπὸ ταυτομάτου
πῦρ καὶ φλόγα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνῆκε: where I shall have
occasion to adduce other examples.

11. οὐ ταύτης τῆς κτίσεως. Beza well renders this:
“non hujus structure,” not built by human hands,
as was the Levitical tabernacle.

12. οὐδὲ OV aiparos—etpapevos, “ Neither by the
blood of (victims such as) bulls and goats, but with
his own blood he entered once for all into the holy
of holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us
by his blood.” It is observed by Rosenm. that διὰ
denotes the necessary condition by which Jesus, our

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 489

high priest, passed through the sanctuary to the
adytum. or that is said to be done by any thing,
which is not done without it. So the Jewish high
priests did not enter the adytum without the blood
of bulls and goats.” Διὰ τοῦ αἵματος, by (the pour-
ing out of) his own blood, by which the expiation of
men was consummated; as by the entering of the
high priest into the adytum, and the sprinkling the
blood on the ἱλαστήριον the solemn act of expiation
was accomplished.” ᾿Εφάπαξ, once for all. This
is meant to signify that that one entering sufficed to
render us partakers of the benefits of his death,
without any repetition of the action, annually or
otherwise; the λύτρωσις being (as the Apostle adds)
αἰώνια. So Theophyl.: οὐ πρόσκαιρον καθαρμὸν, ws
ἐκεῖνοι, ἀλλ᾽ αἰωνίαν ἐλευθερίαν ψυχικῶν ἁμαρτιῶν.

18, 14. εἰ γὰρ---καθαρότητα. It is observed by
Dind., that this, together with the preceding, con-
tains a conclusion a minori ad majus.” Ταύρων is
for μόσχων; as being young bullocks: and indeed.
the words are used promiscuously in the Sept. and.
Philo, who at p. 675. says, that the ravgos and μόσχος
are offered πρὸς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων. He then says,
that the goat is σύμβολον τελείων, 6 καθαίρει καὶ κενοῖ
ψυχὴν ἀμαρτημάτων.

13. καὶ σποδὸς δαμιαλέως ῥαντίϑουσα τοὺς κεκοινωμιένους,
‘‘the ashes of a heifer sprinkling (i. e. sprinkled
over) the defiled.”” (See Num. 19.); from which,
mixed with water, was compounded a sort of holy
liquid, whose sprinkling purified and admitted to
society and divine worship those who had been de-
filed by touching a dead body ora sepulchre. Ke-
κοινωμένοι, defiled. So Philo: ἀκαθάρτοι καὶ μεμιασ-
μένοι. (Rosem.) This use of καινόω is very rare in
the Classical writers; and no example is adduced of
it by the philologists. Yet I find one noted in my
adversaria (though I have inadvertently omitted to
mention the name of the author, probably Josephus
or Philo) κακῶς ἔϑων οἱ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ἀλλήλους EKoIvE="
νουν, Where it is plain we must read ἐκοίνουν.

490 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

13. ἁγιάϑει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα, “ so
cleanses and restores to legal holiness, or the external
purity above mentioned.” [loow μάλλον---ϑώντι,
“ how much more will the blood of Christ, who
through the external spirit offered himself to God a
perfect victim, cleanse your minds and consciences
from dead and sinful works, that ye may serve the
living God.” ‘The only real difficulty these words
contain is in the διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, of which it is
no easy matter to settle the meaning. Various have
been the interpretations (which may be seen detailed
in Pole, Wolf, and Dind.). Most of the antients
and the earlier moderns understand it of the divine
nature of Christ. And this interpretation is ably
supported by Grot., Limb., Braun, Wolf., Schoettg.
Vitringa, Ernesti, Cramer, Storr, and Carpz., which
last Commentator fortifies it from Banab., Epirt. C.
6., and Theophyl. Others, as Abp. Tillots. and
Drs. Owen and Doddr., interpret it of the holy
spirit ; urging Christ’s being conceived, proclaimed,
anointed, working miracles, and at last laying down
his life by this spirit. Thus (Doddr. observes) it
seems a plain testimony to the eternity, and con-
sequently the deity of the spirit. Most of the recent
foreign Commentators, however, are of opinion that
πνευμο here signifies life, i.e. διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου,
may mean “per vitam eternam.” (See more in
Heinr., Doddr., and Rosenm.) This, however, ap-
pears to be an interpretation founded in error, and
does not bear the stamp of truth. The same may
be said of most of the modes of tampering with the
important word πνεῦμα, found in the foreign theo-
logians. I confess that, after all, I see no interpre-
tation so safe as the common one, first mentioned ;
though I cannot enter into any particulars of com-
parison between that and the second; but must re-
fer to the writers above adverted to.

Συνειδ, is well explained by Theophyl. “the inner
manner ;” by Gicumen, the mind. And the consci-
ence must be included. Nexen ἔργα, sinful deeds.

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

See the note, supra 6, 1. By the @ew ϑωντι, is 1...
the only true, the eternal, and omnipotent God. See
Braun.

15. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστὶν.

And because this new covenant is not of victims, but has to
be established and ratified by the blood of the mediator himself,
therefore he is the mediator of the new Covenant. It has,
however, long been a matter of dispute, whether διαθ. should here
be rendered covenant, or testament.* The latter opinion is sup-
ported by many eminent moderns, and, among the more recent
ones, by Carpz, And this the context seems to require. Most of
the later Commentators, from the time of Le Clerc., think that both
significations, covenant, and testament, may have place ; there being
here a play upon the double sense of διαθήκη. For which criticism,
however, Le Clere incurred the severe castigation of Wolf, Oder,
Twells, and Carpz. Dind., however, thinks that dispute merely turns
on words; namely, because the mystical sense was called (populari-
ter) a lusus. True; but Le Clere’s whole language was indecorous,
not to say profane ; and therefore highly censurable ; thoagh I see
nothing so very objectionable in the criticism itself ; since examples
of this kind of lusus, on the different significations of a word, as also
the puronomasia, are frequent among the antients, and not uncom-
mon in our Apostle. Albertiand Dind. adduce two examples from
Philo, certainly one of the gravest of writers, where there is a similar
play on these two senses of διαθήκη. See p. 1052. If this be not’ad-
mitted, and the mediator be thought (as Doddr. maintains) “a very
improper expression,” we may, with Whitby, Pierce, Doddr., and
Mackn., render it covenant (See Macknight’s note). I, however,
agree with Mr. Slade (who has here a copious and able annotation),
that it is least exceptionable to suppose, that the Apostle, i: ver.
16 ἃ 17., is taking advantage of the two-fold sense of διαθήκη, in-
timating that it is applicable to the Christian dispensation, not only
as denoting a covenant (which is the usual signification of the word
in Scripture), but also in its general acceptation, of a testament -

* The state of the question is thus treated on by Slade. “To
the common translation there are several objections, st., The
very notion of a first testament is incorrect, for the Mosaic dispensa-
tion cannot be considered in that light. @nd., We cannot speak of
the mediator of a testament, 3rd., The argument fails, respecting
the necessity of the testator’s death, because the validity of the old
dispensation did not depend upon such an event. 4th., A testament
was never ratified by sacrifice, and, therefore, such a construction
here would exclude the doctrine of expiation. It appears that the
word διαθήκη must, in this verse, signify a covenant, as it always
does in the Sept. To this the great objection lies in ver. 16 ἃ 17.,
where mention is made of the death rov διαθεμένου ; for a covenant

by no means requires the death of a contracting party in order to
its ratification.”

402 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΙΧ.

the death of a testator being not less requisite to the operation of a
will, than the death of a victim to the validity of acovenant. And
so (he adds) Dr. Wells. Whitby’s arguments have been well
answered by Mr. Slade, who also further pre-occupies an objection to
the proposed interpretation, namely, that it appears to introduce a
sophism. “The passage (he truly remarks) might have been intended
not asa proof, but a detached illustration, showing that the Gospel
(ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη), whether regarded as a testament, or a covenant,
must be ratified by death.”

At εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν---παραβάσεων must be understood ἀπὸ. And
Rosenm. compares the Ciceronian phrase liberatur culpe, for aculpd.
The ἐπὶ Rosenm. takes in the sense in. But it seems better to
suppose it used in that of sub; as when speaking of the reign of a
monarch, or the duration ofa magistracy. Oi κεκλημένοι, 1. 6. cum
effectu, as Grot. explains, fuithful Christians. The ἐπαγγελία τῆς
αἰωνίου κληρονομίας signifies the promise of an eternal inheritance
in the promised future felicity, so often represented as such; in
order to show its certainty.

16. ὅπου γὰρ ---διαθεμένου. As the Apostle had, in
the preceding verse, made mention of inheritance,
so he now glides into the idea of a festament. It is
sufficient to observe, that the use of the word διαθ.,
necessarily involves the death of the testator. ᾿Ανάγ-
ky is for ἀναγκαῖον ἐστι; and φέρεσθαι is for ἔπεσθαι,
or γένεσθαι. (Rosenm.) But this seems too arbitrary
and artificial. Others, as Grot. and Schleus., inter-
pret the φέρεσθαι, producere in foro, i. e. ** the death
of the testator must be proved judicially.” This,
however, seems not a little harsh. I am surprised
none of the Commentators should have seen that the
sense is this: “‘ A testament necessarily carries with
it an idea of the death of the testator.” The con-
struction is as follows: ἀνάγκη ἐστι (διαθήκην ταύτην)
φέρεσθαι θάνατον τοῦ διαθεμένου. ‘The words following
are illustrative.

17. διαθήκη yao ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία. This, Rosenm.
observes, is what the Roman Jurisconsults mean,
when they say, Testamentum morte confirmatur.
And he, in conjunction with others, takes the ἐπὶ in
the sense after. But it may signify in the case of ;
and μόνον is understood, βεβαία, carried into effect.
= - ΄
Thus it answers to the μήποτε ἰσχύει, “ produces na

effect.’’

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 4.98

18. ὅθεν---ἐγκεκαίνισται, ‘* whence not even the
first covenant was made valid without blood.”” The
ὅθεν Rosenm. refers to ver.15., and paraphrases,“ that
there should be some similitude between the old
and this new form of religion.” “Eyxexaiuoras, was
made valid, ratum, factum est. So Chrys. explains :
βεβαία γέγονεν ἐκυρώθῃ. A remarkable signification,
which may (I think) be best accounted for thus,
᾿Εγκαινίϑειν, like J2M, signifies, properly, to renew,
and also to use for the first time, Anglicé to handsel;
and, as using any thing isa confirmation of its being
ours, or,in our power, so JM and ἐγκαινίϑειν came to
be applied to denote the solemn handselling of any
thing by various rites, whereby its possession was
confirmed and ratified; indeed we retain the remains
of this custom in what is familiarly called a house-
warming. Hence the term was applied to the
establishing, confirmation, and consummation of any
covenant which is the signification here required ;
and although the above mode of evolving it differs
from any yet proposed, I think it will be found cor-
rect. The Apostle has reference to Ex. 24, 1—8.

19, 20. λαληθείσης---τῷ raw, “ for when Moses
had recited the whole Law (the formula of the cove-
nant) to the people; as had been prescribed (by
God).” Πᾶσα ἐντολὴ, all the precepts in Ex. 21, 22
and 23. Λαλεῖν may very well denote recitation.
The κατὰ νόμον, Theophyl., Beza, and the best recent
Commentators, rightly render, *‘ by command of
God ;”’ for there is no article, and the context re-
quires this sense. Mera ὕδατος. ‘ At Ex. 24, 6.
(observes Rosenm.), it is only said, that the people
were sprinkled with the blood of the victims ; but
that it was usual for water to be mixed with the
blood, we learn from Levit. 14, 49—51., where also
mention is made of the scarlet wool and hyssop.” Ta
αἷμα may be rendered blood ; for the Hebrew (con-
firmed by the Sept. and Philo) has ym, “ the half of
the blood.” With respect to the water and the
branch of hyssop, they are not mentioned by Moses ;

4.94: HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

though they may very well be accounted for, as
being (to use the words of Gom., Germ., Est., and
Rib.) “ aspersionis instrumenta commoda, ne sanguis
aspergendus concresceret :” for the wool imbibes and
retains the moisture, and the hyssop serves for the
sprinkling. That the περιῤῥαντήριον was formed of
hyssop and scarlet wool, we learn from Levit. 14. ;
and that hyssop was used in sprinkling, from Ps. 51,
7., Ex. 12, 22.

With respect to the αὐτὸ re τὸ βιβλίον, some would
join it with the preceding, in order to remove the
seeming discrepancy between this and the Mosaic
account, where it is only said, that the people were
sprinkled. But that is doing violence to the con-
struction; and as the account in question contains
other additions to (though not variations from) the
Mosaic account, it may be tolerated. And, as the
altar was sprinkled, it is probable that the book was
so likewise, just as it lay on the altar. These particu-
lars are supposed to have been derived from tradi-
tion. They are, however, adverted to by the
Apostle in the manner of things well known to his
readers. .

By the πάντα τὸν λαὸν, some (considering the great
number of the people, 600,000,) suppose only their
representatives. Others think that the words being
slowly and loudly pronounced by Moses, were com-
municated by heralds to all the assembled multitude.
Both conjectures are devoid of authority, or even pro-
bability. The frst cannot be thought of; and as to
the latter, it is too formal and hypothetical. The
words, or the substance of them, would be trans-
mitted to, and become known to, all the people,
without the intervention of heralds; for it was not
necessary that they should all have this knowledge
at the same instant.

20. λέγων" Touro—Qeds. Exod. 24,8. The διαθή-
κὴν ἐντέλλεσθαι is for the preceding διαθήκην συντελεῖν,
ποιεῖν, ἐγκαινίϑειν. Inthe Hebrew we have 3, cut,
which has reference to the cattle slaughtered at

HEBREWS, CHAP, IX. 495

entering into a treaty. Πρὸς ὑμᾶς is for ὑμῖν, ** for
your benefit.” (Rosenm.)

41, καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν---εῤῥάντισε. In the Mosaic
account of this dedication we do not read that the
tabernacle with all its vases was sprinkled with blood.
Though this circumstance is also mentioned by
Joseph. Ant. 3, 8, 6., and Philo 675 & 676. (Dind.)

22. καὶ σχεδὸν---καθαρίϑεται. Grot. and Rosenm.
observe, that σχεδὸν is said prudenter ; since some
were cleansed with water, others purified with fire.
Καὶ χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις. Now,
under the Law, no expiation was performed without
blood shedding. ‘To which purpose, the Commentators
cite Maimon. de Pasch. 1, 6., fundamentum sacrificii
in aspersione consistit, and the Talmud: Non est
expiatio, nisi per sanguinem. In sacrifices where all
things were purified with blood, that the ἄφεσις ἁμαρ-
τημάᾶτων Was supposed to be attained, is clear from
the words of Philo, p. 840. (cited by Carpz. and
Dind.), τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ βωμῷ, δι’ οὗ πάντων ἁμαρτημάτων
καὶ παρανομημάτων ἀπολύσεις γίνονται, καὶ παντελεῖς
ἀφέσεις. Why no expiation was held good without
the shedding of blood, see Morus, cited by Rosenm.

23. ἀνάγκη---ταύτας. Now follows the conclusion.
“10 was, therefore, necessary that the shadow of
heavenly things (the tabernacle) should be purified
with these, but heaven itself, with better sacrifices
than these ;”’ 1. 6. “it was necessary that an ap-
proach to Heaven should be afforded by a more efii-
cacious sacrifice.” On ὑπόδειγμα see 8,5. Now, all
things done by the tabernacle worship, and the
priesthood of the Old Law, were but a shadow of
heavenly things. ‘Therefore, it was enough for them
to be consecrated to sacred uses by these, namely, by
the blood of bulls and goats. But those (namely,
the heavenly) were to be dedicated κρείττοσι θυσίαις,
i. e. with the sacrifice of Christ alone. The Plural
is here used for the Singular; as Matt. 21,7. An
enallage common in the Classical writers. In καθα-
ρίϑεσϑαι, there is a metonymy such as we often find,

496 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

‘when things partly similar, partly dissimilar, are
compared. For, as by the legal purification an
‘entrance was afforded to the sanctuary, so, by taking
the effect for the cause, heaven is said καθαρίϑεσθαι,
instead of saying, that an entrance by them is given
to that heaven. (Rosenm.) Heinr. takes καθαρίϑεσθαι
actively, supplying ἡμᾶς; and he regards 670d. καθαρ.
θυσίαις as an exquisitius dictum. Schleus. Lex. un-
derstands expiation. ἸΠαρὰ ταύτας. The ratio of
this idiom is not well seen by the recent Commenta-
tors. The words simply mean compared with, or
than, these. So our than is derived from a verb sig-
nifying to compare.

24. οὐ γὰρ----οὐρανὸν. The force of χειροποιητ. has
been explained, supra, ver. 11. ᾿Αντίτυπ. is nearly
synonymous with ὑπόδειγμια, παραβολὴ, σύμβολον
(which terms are promiscuously used by Philo) ; and
on this term Ihave before treated. See also Carpz. and
Schleus. Lex. The sentiment is as follows: “ Christ
did not enter into the human holy of holies, which
was only an image representing the true one, namely,
heaven, but into heaven itself. Nov ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ
προσώπῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, sub. εἰς τὸ Or ὥστε, in
order to. On the signification οἵ ἐμφανισθῆναι the
Commentators somewhat differ. ‘The best founded
opinion seems to be, that it denotes to present him-
self, appear before. It is, we are told, a forensic
term; as Acts 24, 1.,25,2&15. But it means not
only present oneself at a royal court, to obtain
justice, but plead the cause of another, See Krnesti,
Carpz., and Dind., in loc. Here, by the context
(especially the ὑπὲρ ἡμών following), it must signify
appear, to plead our cause, to deprecate the wrath
of God, and obtain our pardon. It is observed by
Rosenm., that the High Priest is said to appear
before God, when he stands at the ark. By which
it was declared that the solemn expiation was then
made. So Christ entered into Heaven, and stood at
the right hand of the Father. Now, therefore, it 1s
declared that the whole expiation is effected, and

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. 407

that pardon is obtained for men by the death of
Christ. See c.'7, 25.

25, 26. οὐδ᾽ ἵνα---ἀλλοτρίῳ. The οὐδὲ belongs, not
to ver. 24., but ver. 23.; and the οὐ γὰρ and οὐδὲ cor-
respond to each other. Thus ἀνάγκη must be
repeated. ‘The sense is: ‘* Neither was it necessary
that he should offer himself often, as the High
Priests enter the temple every year with another's
blood. The offering of Christ was his passion and
death, infinitely superior to the offering of the High
Priests, and especially as requiring only once to be
made, and not having need that Christ should de-
seend from heaven, and repeat it annually, or ever
again.” Ἐν αἷμ. is for σὺν αἷμ. The ἀλλοτρ. is used, as
better suited to the ἰδίω; but it has simply the sense of
ἄλλος.

26. ἐπεὶ ἔδει----κόσμου. This is ἃ parenthetical
clause, in which, Dindorf thinks, there is a reductio
ad absurdum. Though Grot. interprets the ἔδει
oportuisset (av being understood), as used not of
necessity, but of what is better and more expedient ;
q. d. “if there had been any greater efficacy in a
repeated offering, it would have been expedient that
he should,” &c. Nov δὲ. A νῦν coming after a δὲ
often (as here) denotes, not time, but opposition.
And soGrot. The sense may be thus expressed :
“as things now are; as there was no utility in a
repeated offering.” “Awa, once for all. ᾿Επὶ cuvre-
λείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, “at the conclusion of the ages,” i. e.
the last of the Dispensations, the fulness of time.
See 1 Cor., 10, 11.,and the notes. Ernesti renders,
“in ultima mundi parte.’ Eis ἀθέτησιν dpaprias,
“forthe putting away and abolition of sin.” See
Dan. 9, 24. Διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωνται, “ he
hath been manifested by his own sacrifice ;” as
ἐμφανισθῆναι at ver. 24. So the High Priest had to
appear annually before God. It is observed by
Carpz., that this is a verbum sacrificantis in terrd,
equivalent to éeyyigew rw Θεῴ, καὶ ἑαυτὸν θυσίαν προσ-
φέρειν. Αηά 80 in Philo 1097, sacrificers are said

VOL. VIII, 2K

498 HEBREWS, CHAP. IX.

ἐγγίϑειν, and φανεροῦσθαι τῷ Θεῴ. ‘There is an evi-
dent aliusion to his thus presenting his sacrifice.

27, 28. καὶ καθ᾽ ὅσον---κρίσις. ‘The Apostle shows
by a new argument, derived a simili, that Christ
ought once only to offer himself, namely, because his
sacrifice and death were one and the same. Nor
does he properly intend to affirm that all men must
die, but that it is appointed for them once to die,
and aiter death, nothing shall remain but judgment.
(Dind.) So Theophyl.: Nov καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν λέγει διὰ

Le ih, > , ε \ / \ ed aN ,
τί ἅπαξ ἀπέθανεν 6 Χριστὸς" διότι, φησὶν, ἑνὸς θανάτου
ἀντίλυτρὸν ἐγένετο. ᾿Απέκειτο γὰρ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ
ἀποθανεῖν" τοῦτο οὖν τὸ ἅπαξ ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ πάντων.

The καθ᾽ ὅσον is for Kabws. ᾿Απόκειται, ““ it is di-
vinely decreed and appointed.” Dindorf here ob-
serves, that ἀποκ. is used not only of rewards, but of
every thing appointed and destined to be. And
Wets. and Kypke adduce numerous Classical exam-
ples, not, however, very apposite. On the sentv-
ment it is well observed by Rosenm.: “ Opponuntur
5101 hominum mors et κρίσις ; Jesu mors et κρίσις:
κρίσις Jesu, ut gudicis, hominis ut judicandi.”

28. οὕτως -- σωτηρίαν.

Here ἅπαξ signifies once for all. See the note on Rom. 8, 21.
Προσενεχθεὶς, 561]. eis θυσίαν, ““ being offered up by himself.” So
Theophyl.: ὑφ᾽ éavrov. Ei yap καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ θῦμα,
καὶ ἱερεῖον. ‘The πολλῶν is for πάντων, ““ all who should lay hold
on his salvation by faith and obedience.” ‘ It is not to be under-
stood (says Dr. Wells) that Christ was once offered to bear the sins
only of some certain persons, but that he was offered for the sins of
the whole world; though wicked men, by their impenitence, lay not
hold of this benefit ; and so it comes to pass, that Christ actually
bears only the sins of many; viz. of such as believe and obey the
Gospel, and so actually enjoy the benefit of Christ’s oblation, accord-
ing to Heb. 5, 9.” So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) : Τίνος δὲ ἕνεκεν
εἶπε, πολλῶν, Kal οὐ πάντων ; ἐπειδὴ μὴ πάντες ἐπίστευσαν. Ὁ
μὲν γὰρ θάνατος αὐτοῦ ἀντίῤῥοπος ἦν τῆς πάντων ἀπωλείας, καὶ

σον τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, ὑπὲρ παντων ἀπέθανεν" οὐ πάντων δὲ τὰς ἁμαρ-
τίας ἀνήνεγκε, διὰ τὸ μὴ θελῆσαι αὐτοὺς. “Ὥστε ἄχρηστον ἑαυτοῖς
τὸν θάνατον τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐποίησαν. ᾿ 80 also ‘Theodoret: Τῶν
οὖν πεπιστευκότων μόνων τὰς ἁμαρτίας διέλυσε. See also Ecumen.
Theophyl. notices that πολλῶν may be taken for πάντων ; as at
Matt, 20, 28. And so most recent Interpreters, who might have
cited the Virgilian Unum pro multis dabitur caput. It comes to the

HEBREWS, CHAP. IX. X. 409

same thing; and, in either way, the passage is rescued from Calvi-
nistic perversion. It may be observed, too, that this and the pre-
ceding passage are remarkable for containing a direct assertion of
the vicarious sacrifice of Christ; on which see Braun in loc., and
the excellent work of Abp. Magee on the Atonement.

Ἔκ δευτέρου. See the note of Limb., or the substance of it de-
tailed by Doddr, Χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. The sense of this term is obscure
and uncertain; consequently Commentators differ in opinion.
Whitby, Mich., Storr, Morus, Schleus, Mackn., and others, take
a&paor. to mean a sin-offering. But see the well founded objections
of Dind. and Slade. ‘he usual signification of the word may very
well be retained ; and, with Carpzov, Rosenm., Dind., and Slade,
we may render: ‘ sine peccati nostri onere, quod sibi ferundum
imposuit, quod in crucem sustulisse dicitur ;* or, with Hamm.,
Pierce, and Doddr., “ without any of those sufferings which he
underwent as an atonement for sin;” which comes to the same
thing. The sense, then, is: ‘ without having occasion again to
bear our sins, by the sufferings he formerly underwent as an atone-
ment for them.” The eis σωτηρίαν may be construed either with
ὀφθήσεται, or with ἀπεκδεχομένοις. The former method is sup-
ported by the antients, the Syr., and the most eminent moderns ;
the latter, ‘« who look to him for salvation,” by Castell., Wolf, and
Slade, who compare Phil. 3,20. But that passage is not of the
same nature; and it may be questioned whether it can bear any
such sense. The former construction is undoubtedly the true one.

The whole passage is admirably explained by Theophyl. (from
Chrys.) thus: Ὀφθήσεται δὲ ἐκ δευτέρου οὐκέτι ἁμαρτίας ἐπιφερό-
μενος, οὐδὲ θανάτου δευτέρου δι᾽ αὐτὰς δεόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς κριτὴς εἰς
σωτηρίαν τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀπεκδεχομένοις, τουτέστι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς
αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐλπίξουσι τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν" πρόδηλον δὲ ὅτι καὶ
ἀξίως αὐτῆς ξῶσι. Καιτοιγε ov μόνον εἰς σωτηρίαν ἥξει, ἀλλὰ καὶ
εἰς τιμωρίαν τῶν ἀπίστων καὶ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως τὸ φαι-
δρὸν εἶπε.

CHAP. X.

The Apostle proceeds to treat of the imperfection
of the Mosaic Law, and the perfection of the Chris-
tian religion, also the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our
sins, ver. 1—18. (Ern.) This Chapter is not con-
nected with the words immediately preceding, nor
contains the reason of them; but relates to what
was said on the entering in of the Priest to the
sanctum sanctorum every year ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίω ;
whereas Christ offered himself. The cause he de-
duces from the variety of sacrifices, and the nature of
the law. (Dind.)

ΟἿ ὦ

500 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

VERSE 1. σχίαν---πραγμάτων, “ Kor the Law hold-
ing out only a shadow of the future and heavenly
blessings, not the very figure and substance of them.
Ἔχων, ‘since itheld out.” Zxiav, 1. 6. a faint sketch
or outline, opposed to which is the εἰκὼν, or the figure
filled up, and become a complete and substantial
form. So εἶδος, 2 Cor. ὅ, 7. See Chrys., Theophyl.,
and C&cumen., and also Dind. The μέλλοντα ἀγαθὰ -
denotes, not the heavenly sanctuary, as Pierce fan-
cies, but, as the best antient and modern Commen-
tators are agreed, the benefits obtained by Christ,
true forgiveness of sins, and admission to eternal
happiness. See 9, 11.

1. κατ᾽ eviauriv—rerciooas, There is here a tra-
jectio and synchysis; and the construction is thus
laid down by Rosenm.* οὐδέποτε δύναται τελειῶσαι
τοὺς προσερχομένους κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἅς
προσφέρουσιν (SC. ἱερεῖς) εἰς διηνεκὲς. By the προσερχο-
μένους are meant those who approached to the altar
(as Heb. 11, 6.), such as the Apostle afterwards calls
the λατρεύοντας, or worshippers. Τελειώσαι, make
perfect, fully expiate, and free from sin, i. e. quoad
mentem et conscientiam.
ον 9, ἐπεὶ οὐκ---κεκαθαομιένους. Many MSS. and other
authorities read ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν, which is approved by
most Critics, and has been received by Griesbach.
Thus the words will be taken interrogatively, with
this sense: ““ Would not those sacrifices have ceased
to be offered up every year?” And they remark that
ἐπεὶ may commence an interrogative sentence ; asin
Rom. 3, 6. and Aristoph. Nub. 689. Carpzov, how-
ever, thinks the common reading (which is, more-
over, found in Chrys.), is more agreeable to the
simple assertion which follows. And he observes
that Philo often uses ἐπειδὴ and ἐπειδὰν in the sense
siquidem, ceteroquin.. The sense is the same on either
reading: but I see no sufficient reason to abandon
the common one. Particles are often introduced ex
emendatione, and that arising from misapprehension ;
which seems to be the case here. ‘The reading κἄν,

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 501

was another emendation : for 1 remember no instance
of ἐπεὶ and οὐκ coming together. What are the
“critical reasons” for the new reading I am at a loss
imagine.

The sense is: “ otherwise (if men could not by
these sacrifices have been perfectly expiated) they
would have ceased being offered.’ For here, as in
᾿ many other instances, the Greek and English idioms
coincide. See Viger. and Matth. Gr. Gr.

2. διὰ τὸ pydepiav ἔχειν----κεκαθαρμένους, ** by reason
of the worshippers, once purified, having no longer
any consciousness of sin, to deserve punishment and
need expiation ;” or, ““ they would have been freed
from the consciousness of sin, and the solicitude and
anxiety thence resulting.” Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. in
loc. well explains the use of συνειδ, by the Apostle
thus: ““ Sacrificia expiatoria V. ‘T. non poterant sine
fide in Messiam sic expiare peccata, ut conscientiz
hominum propterea tranquille fuerint, nullosque
peccatorum morsus ultra senserint. Sed sacrificium
Christi fide a credentibus apprehensum conscientias
sic tranquillas reddit, ut a metu peccatorum plané
sint immunes.”

8. ἀλλὰ lev adrais—evaurov. At αὐταῖς must be
understood θυσίαις, and (as Ernesti thinks) μονὴ after
ἀνάμνησις. The sense is: ‘ But in these sacrifices
there is only an annual commemoration (by the High
Priest, on the day of expiation) of the sins (commit-
ted) during the year ya ae _Theophyl. explains: οὐδὲν
ἅμα κατόρθουσιν αἱ θυσίαι, εἰ μὴ μόνον ἀνάμνησιν ἁμαρ-
τιών, τουτέστιν, ἔλεγχον. Οὐ γὰρ ἄφεσιν παρέχουσιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδεικνύουσι διὰ τοῦ ἀεὶ προσφέρεσθαι, ὅ ὅτι ἄλυτοι
εἶσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι τοῦ λαοῦ, Εἰ γὰρ ἐλύθησαν ai ἁμαρ-
τίαι, τι ἔδει θυσιῶν ;

4. ἀδύνατον---ἁμαρτίας. The Apostle _ (Theoph. ob-
serves) str engthens t the reasoning ἀπὸ τῆς εὐτελείας τῶν
προσαγόμενων, καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τοῦ νοσήματος. By ἁ αμαρτ.
is meant the reatus, and the consequent punishment
resulting from it. Now the blood of bulls and goats
could only produce a corporeal or legal purity, could

502 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

not cleanse tle conscience, or free us from all sin;
as does the blood of Christ. See Carpzov, who cites
a passage of Philo 3, 675 c., where it is said that all
sacrifices are only symbols of the purification of the
mind. |

5. διὸ εἰσερχόμενος ---ἀθβέλησας, ““ Wherefore, to show
this, where the Messiah is described as coming into
the world and commencing his work, he saith:
‘* Sacrifices thou desirest not, but a body hast thou
purified me.” ‘ The Apostle (says Mr. Valpy)
opening the great plan of redemption, introduces
the Saviour as thus addressing his Father. See the
6th and following verses of Ps. 40., which is a pro-
phecy of Christ, upon the assumption of the hu-
man nature.” At εἰσερχ. the recent Commentators
subaud ws, and render the eimepy. venturus, as if
about to come. But this is a needless refinement.
Of course, it must mean his coming from heaven
into this world; and Whitby here ably refutes the
gloss of the Socinians, by which they would evade
this proof of the pre-existence of Christ in heaven
before he came into the world. λέγει, i.e. saith by
the mouth of David, who there (Ps. 40, 6 seqq.)
speaks in the person of the Messiah.

5. σῶμα κατηρτίσω μοι. As to the remarkable
discrepancy here between the Heb. and the Sept.,
I cannot notice the conjectures which have been
hazarded, to account for that difference, or the re-
finements of interpretation by which they are at-
tempted to be reconciled. See Pole, Wolf, and
Dindorf. It may be sufficient to say that it is the
opinion of the most judicious, that the discrepancy
may best be removed by supposing that the Sept.
have translated freely, giving the real, though not
the literal sense; explaining it (as Mr. Slade says,
to whose note I refer for their particulars), in the way
of paraphrase, to those for whom they translated.
See Rom. 3, 12. There can be no doubt but the
phrase capo δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι must be understood of
Christ’s being clothed and fitted with a human body

HEBREWS, CHAP. Χ, 503

for the purpose of making the sacrifice in question.
The sense intended by the Apostle is expressed by
Rosenm. thus: ‘‘ Since the sacrifices enjoined by the
Law of Moses could not take away sins, Christ was
pleased to offer up himself, and by this sacrifice to
expiate and bring us to salvation.”

6. ὁλοκαυτώματα---εὐδόκησας. At περὶ ἁμαρτίας
must be understood θυσίαν, Heb. TNUN, a sin-offering.
Οὐκ εὐδόκησας. A stronger term than the οὐκ ἤἥτησας
of the Sept. and the nosw x5 of the Hehrew. But
St. Paul regarded (and rightly) the verb ΓΝ as put
per meiosin.

7. τότε eitov—cov. At τότε there seem to be
some words omitted, which may be thus supplied :
““ Seeing, then (said I), that thou art not appeased
by sacrifices, I said, Behold, here am I, ready to obey
thee, and fulfil all thy will.” Thus τότε must neither
be taken in sensu χρονικῷ, nor be regarded, with
Heinr., Mich., and Dind., as pleonastic. At τοὺ
ποιῆσαι must be understood ἕνεκα, which is for εἰς τὸ
ποιῆσαι.

Instead of κεφαλίδι other Translators have εἰλήματι
or βιβλίῳ, or τεύχει. The Heb. 2x2 undoubtedly
signifies a roll. But the best Critics have observed
that κεφαλὶς may be no more ; since it was so called,
with a reference to the wooden rolls, or staves, about
which the parchment was rolled wp; having at the
ends, or (I should conjecture) one end, a piece of
turnery, which, from bearing some rude*resemblance
of a head (as sometimes we see on walking-sticks),
might give name to the whole. By the keg. is, I
think, with Doddr., meant the Pentateuch, with allu-
sion to the general predictions in it of the Messiah.

8, 9. ἀνωτερον---εἴρηκεν. Rosenm., after observing
that these are not the words of the Psalm, but of St.
Paul, notices that it was not unusual for writers (as
Philo) to take another’s words, and then to bring
them forward, member by member, and deduce ar-
guments from them. And he lays down the senéi-
ment from ver. 5—Q9. thus: “ Obedience is better

504 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

than external sacred rites. This obedience Christ
rendered, by willingly and promptly submitting him-
self to death, to this end, that we should be purified
from sin, and obtain pardon and acceptance.”

9. ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον---στήση. Such is usual in dis-
junctive syllogisms. Τὸ πρῶτον, the Levitical sacri-
fices. Τὸ δεύτερον, i.e. τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Αἰρεῖν, like ἀθετεῖν and καταργεῖν, signifies to abrogate.
‘Iordvas signifies to set up, confirm. ‘The meaning
is, that the precept respecting sacrifices will now
cease, and another will hence have place, which the
Messiah had promised when he declared that he
would do the will of his Father. (Rosenm.)

(10. ἐν ᾧ--ἐθφάπαξ. The θελημ. is explained by
Ernesti P29, εὐδοκία, good pleasure of God: for to
God the Father, the antients, and most moderns
refer it; on which see Mackn. and Whitby ap Slade.
By Carpzov and Rosenm. it is referred both to God
the Father, and God the Son. And Rosenm. adds:
“ quia Deus hoc a Jesu fieri voluit, et Jesu id quod
voluerat Deus, fecit.” It is observed by Dind.:
« Agitur hic tantum de sacrificio, quo Christus semet
Patri obtulit, in eoque ejus voluntatem sive mandata
exsecutus est, que duplicis quidem generis erant, ut
partim homines sanioris religionis cognitione imbu-
eret, partim eorum causa mortem subiret.” Ἡγιασ-
μένοι, “ purified from sin.” For, as Rosenm. and
Dind. observe, ἁγιάϑειν is synonymous with καθαίρειν,
and has reference to the sacred κάθαρσις to be ob-
tained by piacular and various kinds of washings.
The sense, then, is, that “‘ weare rendered pure, and
obtain pardon and acceptance solely by the offering
of the body of Christ.” ᾿Εφάπαξ, i.e. once for all,
by an act neither needing nor admitting of repeti-
tion, on which our pardon may safely be rested,
since it will be for ever availing, and not be tempo-
rary, like that of the sacrifices of the old dispensa-
tion.

11. καὶ πᾶς---θυσίας. The Apostle proceeds to
show the infinite superiority of Christ to the High

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 505

Priests of the Old Testament, especially since they
were only ministers and servants, but Christ is
‘Lord. (Rosenm.) This verse, Braun thinks, coheres
with ver. 12, 13, and 14. And here the Apostle
brings forward a new argument for the sufficiency of
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or rather confirms what
had been already said. λειτουργία may refer to those
parts (doubtless the most dignified) which the High
Priest had assigned to him in the ministration. The
ἕστηκε may be not without force; since (as Braun
observes) no Priest was allowed to δέ down in the
temple, on pain of death; though Chrys. says: ἄρα
τὸ ἑστάναι τοῦ λειτουργεῖν ἐστι σημιεῖον᾽ οὐκοῦν TO καθησ -
θαι, τοῦ λειτουργεῖσθαι. Rosenm., too, recognizes an
antithesis in πολλάκις and ἐφάπαξ προσφέρειν.

12, 13. αὐτὸς δὲ---Θεοῦ. The ἐκάθισεν is rightly
said, by Rosenm., to denote the majesty and dignity
of Christ, though that rather confirms the sense of
ἕστηκε in the preceding verse, which he rejects.
For in the temple every Priest was compelled to
stand, as being in the court of the Great King; but
Christ sits in the presence of God, and that at his
right hand, and is σύνθρονος. The force of the com-
parison is obvious.

On ver. 13. see the note on 1,13. By the enemies
of God, Dind. says, is meant whatever hinders the
salvation Christ wishes to obtain for his servants,
namely, sinful actions, superstition, idolatry, and
death itself; as is explained by the Apostle’s words
at 1 Cor. 15, 90. But this seems an unwarrantable
refinement : for though actions may be included, yet
surely the persons by whom the actions are per-
formed, must be chiefly understood. Who these
persons are, Braun has well shown, who also observes
that the ἐν δεξιᾷ, though propounded ἀνθρωποπαθώς,
must be understood Θεοπρεπώς ; since it is sometimes
used of God; as Is. 30, 38.

14. μιᾷ γὰρ---ἁγιαϑομένους, “For by one sacrifice
he hath for ever expiated those that were to be re-
deemed.” Terea., Dind. observes, answers to the

506 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

phrase ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιεῖν at ver. 18., and to
περιελεῖν at ver. 11. And Carpz. and Dind. think
that the words εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς belong to rerea.; though
some refer them to προσῷ. ; others, to ayiag.

15—17. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ---μνησθώ ἔτι. The δὲ signifies
moreover. Μαρτυρεῖ, bears testimony, teaches, namely,
that we are expiated and blessed. To πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
Here (Carpz. observes) is a proof of the Divinity of
the Holy Spirit ; since him whom at ver. 15 he calls
the Holy Spirit, he at 16. calls Κύριος, for which the
Hebrew original is 7. Rosenm. notices that
the words μετὰ τὸ προειρηκέναι are connected with
ver. 16.; and at the beginning of ver. 17. must be
understood εἶτ᾽ ἐπιλέσει. ‘* For (continues he) the
nervus probandi is in ver. 17. ‘the sins committed
by them I will remember no more,’ i. e. I will remit
and not punish (as supra 8, 12.):’’ and this is partly
clear from the introduction of the words at ver. 18.,
and partly from many things being omitted after ver.
16., which had been brought forward at 8, 8. seq.

18. ὅπου δὲ---ἁμαρτίας. The argument goes to prove
the insufficiency of the Priesthood of the Old Testa-
ment. The majoriscertain. For oblationis madein order
to the obtaining of remission. Now since they could
obtain no perfect remission, but only a typical one,
which was rather a πάρεσις and ἀνοχὴ ; therefore the
προσφορὰ remained, and was to be every day re-
peated. Whence it follows, ‘‘ where there is perfect
remission of sin, no oblation can have place ;” for it
would thus be vain. The minor is this: that under
the New Covenant there is a perfect remission of
sins. (Braun.) To this purpose Carpz. cites Philo
675 c. and 843 c. whence it appears that in a sacri-
fice for sin there was said to. be sought παρὰ τῆς ἵλεω
τοῦ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἁμνηστία ἀδικημάτων ; for that bulls
and calves were slain περὶ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων.

19, 20. ἐχοντες οὖν---᾿ Ἰησοῦ.

I would render: “ Since then, brethren, we have obtained a pri-

vilege for an entrance into the Holies (i. e. heaven), through (the
efficacy of) the blood of Christ, to which entrance he hath prepared

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 507

for us a new and perpetual way, by the removal of the veil, even his
body.” Here (observes Rosenm.) there commences a new section
of the Epistle, which has been hitherto doctrinal, showing the suffi-
ciency of Christ’s Priesthood, and the weakness of the Aaronitish.
Now the Apostle proceeds to the horlutive, consolatory, and con-
firmatory, which extends to the end of the Epistle.” In the εἴσοδον
τῶν ἁγίων there is an allusion to the rite of the Old Testament
which forbade entrance to the Sanct. Sanctorum to any but the
High Priest. Now (it is shown) by the efficacy of the sacrifice of
Christ, all the faithful as well as Priests, are admitted to the Chris-
tian Sanctum Sanctorum, even heaven itself. Παῤῥησία, liberty,
privilege. See supra, 3, 16. 4,16. "Ev τῷ αἵματι Inaois, 1. 6. (as
Carpz. has shown) ‘ by the virtue and efficacy of the blood of
Jesus.” So Theophyl.: διὰ τοῦ αἵματος. The ἐνεκαίνισεν Chrys.
explains, ‘‘ formed and himself entered upon,” literally, created,
i. e. first laid open and himself entered upon. Now he that lays
open aroad, is said to have prepared or made it. See note supra,
9,18. ‘Oddy πρόσφατον καὶ ξῶσαν. The adjective πρόσφατος pro-
perly signifies newly slain, or recently spoken ; but chiefly the latter.
At length, however, it came to merely mean new-made (iike our
brand-new), and, in a general way, new. Now this way to heaven
might very well be so called, as having been hitherto unknown, and
then first, and also recently, opened out, and trodden by Christ. (See
Braun.) It is also called ξῶσαν, which is explained by Braun tri-
tam, well trodden ; by Rosenm. amenam, jucundam ; and by Ernesti
eternal, with reference to the perpetual sacrifice of Christ. But all
these interpretations are too fanciful, The only one that bears the
stamp of truth is that of the antients and several moderns vivifi-
cam, which tends to life and happiness. So Theoph.: Φωοποιοῦσα,
εἰς Φωὴν ἄγουσα, as opposed to the old road, which was θανατη-
φόρα. So at 6, 1. νεκρὰ is used of things which lead to death. See
also Joh. 14, 6. Now this way, on the contrary (Theophyl, ob-
serves) eis Φπὴν φέρει, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ Θῆ, καὶ διαιωνέξει.

By the διὰ τοῦ κατοπετάσματος, almost all Commentators are
agreed, is meant the veil of Christ’s body. ‘‘ For (observes Ro-
senm.) as the Pontifex Max. could not pass to the Sanctum Sanc-
torum, except by the removal of the veil; so neither could we,
unless by the body of Christ suffering death (and therefore the re-
moval of that veil) ascend to heaven.” See also the copious anno-
tation of Braun. But the ratio metaphore and the true sense is
still better explained in the racy and nervous language of Theoph.
(from Chrys.) as follows: ᾿Ενεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν τὴν ὁδὸν ταύτην τὴν εἰς
οὐρανὸν, διὰ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ" ὅτε γὰρ ἤρθη ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ αὕτη, Kai
ἀναλήφθη, τότε ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡμῖν τὰ οὐράνια" Διὸ καὶ εὐκαίρως κατα-
πέτασμα αὐτὴν ἐκάλεσε" τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, TO,
ὅταν ἀρθῇ, ἀνακαλύπτειν τὰ ἔνδογ. 4

21, 22. καὶ ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Re-
peat ἔχοντες from the preceding verse. The οἶκον
Θεοῦ may mean the Christian congregation, the

508 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

Church (see 8, 6.) over which Christ presides. So
Est., Menoch., Zeg., and others. And this interpre-
tation is well defended by Grot. ‘Theophyl., how-
ever, after noticing this interpretation (which 15
given by Aicumen. and Theodoret), adds another,
which he prefers, namely, τὸν οὐρανὸν ; observing:
ἐν ἑκείνω γὰρ λειτουργεῖν τὸν ᾿Αρχιερέα λέγει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν
ἐντυγχάνοντα. And this is (I think, with reason) pre-
ferred by Gomar, Ribera, and most of the recent
Commentators.

Do: προσερχώμεθα. A term often (as also 11, 6.)
used by the Apostie and Philo in the sense λατρεύω,
draw near (and worship). Μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας, as
opposed to hypocritical piety, or inattentive prayer.
So Theophyl.: ἀδόλου, ἀνυποκρίτου. Or it may mean,
he thinks, ἀδιστάκτοο. And so Ernesti, ‘firmly
trusting in the merits of Christ.” Thus (observes
Dind.) the Hebrews say a8; as Is. 38, 4. where the
Sept. has ἀληθίνην καρδίαν. See also on Eph, 6, 5.”
And this is supported by what follows, which seems
exegetical.

22, ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, “with a full and undoubt-
ing faith.” See 1 Thess. 1, 5. Col. 2, 2. and the
notes. I would compare Dionys. Hal. '729, 21. δόξα
τε ἰσχυρὰ, καὶ οὐ πολὺ ἀπέχουσα πίστις εἶναι.

22. ἐῤῥαντισμένοι---πονηρᾶς, ““ sprinkled as to our
hearts, from a consciousness of evil.” So Ernesti:
“‘ animis a conscientia peccati puris purgatis.” “ The
effect (observes Rosenm.) is put for the cause.” I
would compare Joseph. p. 6, 41. ἐπὶ συνειδότι πονηρῷ.

There is an allusion to the sacrificial rite by which
the mind as well as the body of the worshipper was
required to be pure. With respect to the λελουμένοι
τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, this (Rosenm. observes) desig-
nates the external purity which is wont to be con-
joined with internal holiness. And in the times of
their Old Testament the Priests every day washed the
bodies (see Exod. 29, 4. and Levit. 16, 4.) ; to which
custom there is here an allusion. Ernesti thinks
there is in these words an ἐξεργασία, or parallelism.

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 509

They cannot (he adds) be taken proprie, unless they
be understood of baptism, which cannot here be
meant.

23, 24, κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ,
“ Let us hold fast the profession of our hope οἵ sal-
vation by Christ.” ‘Opor. τῆς ἐλπίδος, * the profes-
sion of the religion which bids us hope.” See the
note on 8, 1. So ἐλπὶς is used in 1 Pet. 3,15. Theo-
phyl. explains: τὴν ὁμολογηθεῖσαν ἡμῖν τὴν ἐλπίδα.
And he thinks the ὁμολ. has reference to the confes-
sion at baptism. ᾿Ακλινῆ, firm, unwavering. So
Theophyl.: βεβαίαν. Wets. cites from Lucian, ἀκλινῆ
τὴν ψυχὴν.

24. καὶ κατανοώμιεν---ἔργων, ** Let us be mindful to
excite each other to mutual love and liberality.”
Karavociy signifies properly to mind ; and here, to be
mindful of, have a care of, be studious of. Schleus.
cites Is.57,1. Els παροξυσμὸν, &c. “ to excite each
other to,” or, ““ that we may be mutually excited, and
feel a mutual emulation.” So Theoph.: ἐπισκοπώμεν
εἴτις ἐνάρετος, iva τοῦτον μιμώμεθα. For, as Theodoret
observes, σίδηρος σίδηρον θήγει, καὶ λίθος λίθῳ προστριβό-
μένος ἀποκύει Dacya. Τ]αροξυσμὸς is a word of middle
signification, and may, as here, include incitement to
good as wellastoevil. By the καλὰ épyeare plainly
meant works of beneficence.

Q5. μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες---παρακαλοῦντες.

The ἐγκαταλ. is usually rendered relinquentes, deserentes, leaving
off. But the sense seems to be, “" failing in the duty of assembling
yourselves together.” For ἐπισυναγωγὴν is well explained by
Theophyl. τὸ ἐπισυνάγεσθαι. The question, however, is, what is
meant by ἐπισυν. Theodoret interprets it συμφωνίαν. And so
many moderns understand it of friendly society. Ernesti takes it of
the agape; others of apostasy from the Christian religion ; others
again, of collection for the poor, All these interpretations are open
to various objections: and I see no one so probable as the antient and
common ones, by which itis taken for the congregating themselves to-
gether for public, or at least common worship. That this interpretation
is of great antiquity, appears from the term having been so used in the
writings of the early councils, where the regulations of public wor-
ship are treated of. So Ignat. (cited by Grot.) πυκνότερον cuvayw-
yal γινέσθωσαν. And again: σπουδάξετε οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσ-
θαι εἰς εὐχαριστίαν Θεοῦ καὶ δόξαν, See also Clemens and Just.

510 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

Mart. And so Theophy]. must have taken it ; since headds: μηδὲ
χωρισμοὺς καὶ παρασυναγωγὰς ἐπιτηδεύειν, ““ and not studying se-
parations or bye-meetings, dissenting assemblies.” Now this inter-
pretation (notwithstanding what Ern. says) is very agreeable to the
context; and it is ably supported by Beza, Grot., Wolf, Carpz.,
Dind., and Rosenm. It is, with great probability, conjectured by Est.
and Beza, that ἐπισυναγ. was used rather than ovvay., in order the
better to distinguish Christian assemblies from Jewish synagogues.
Toa neglect of public worship and schism the Hebrews (we are told)
were too prone. And to this purpose Hillah (cited by Schoettg.
Hor. Hebr.) says : ‘‘ Qui separat e congregatione, non videbit con-
solationem que Ecclesiam tangit.”’

As to the context seeming to require us (as Homberg says) to
understand the ἐπισυναγ. of apostacy (of which Whitby takes it),
Grot. well remarks, that neglect of attendance on public worship is
the beginning of apostacy. As to private religious meetings, like the
agape, seeming more suitable to the context (as Ernesti contends),
itis to be remembered that all Christian congregations were as yet
small conventicula, or assemblies such as could conveniently meet at
private houses, (which has been already shown in the notes to the
former Epistles). Finally a desertion of the asssemblies for worship
was also sure to lead to the neglect of the καλὰ ἔργα Just men-
tioned; since the poor were chiefly relieved or supported by the
collections made at such meetings. I cannot conclude without ob-
serving, that in proof of the high importance of public worship, we
need only attend to the remark of one of the bitterest enemies of our
religion (for we must remember, “ fas est et ab hoste doceri’,) Gibbon,
in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4. p. 83. ‘ The
devotion of the poet, or the philosopher, may be secretly nourished
by prayer, meditation, and study: but the exercise of public worship
appears to be the only solid foundation of the religious sentiments
of the people, which derive their force from imitation and habit.
The interruption of that public exercise may consummate, in the
period of a few years, the important work of a national revolution.
The memory of theological opinions cannot long be preserved
without the artificial helps of priests and of books.” On this subject
of public worship I beg to recommend to the attention of my rea-
ders the excellent treatise of Mr. Holden on the Christian Sabbath.

Καθὼς ἔθος τισὶν. This is by J. Capell. and Carpz. thought to be
a litotes, such as in 1 Cor. 10, 7. ᾿Αλλὰ παρακαλοῦντες, scil. ἑαυτοὺς.
Here most supply ἐπισυνάγεσθαι. But this seems too formal and
frigid, and not agreeable to what follows. Indeed most Commenta-
tors seem at a loss what sense to assign. It seems to refer to the
παροξυσμὸν at ver. 24., and must be extended to every kind of ex-
citement to virtue and. religion. Theophyl. well explains thus:
ἀλλήλοις ὄντες eis παραμυθίαν, καὶ eis τὸν Eva νουθετοῦντες, καὶ δι-
δάσκοντες, καὶ παρηγοροῦντες. The words μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες---
τισὶν are, insome degree, parenthetical.

Τοσούτῳ---ἡμέραν. These words are hy some interpreted of the
destruction of Jernsalem, which may (they say) be connected with

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 511

the day of the Lord, or of judgment: since the Apostles themselves
and other Christians supposed that, on Jerusalem being destroyed,
their Lord would return, and release his followers from the prosecu-
tions of the Jews. ‘There is, however, no reason to abandon the
common interpretation, the day of judgment, which seems to be
required by the words following φοβερὰ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως, καὶ
πυρὸς Ξῆλος. Objections to it are indeed made, but such as ad-
mit of easy answer.

26, 27. Now is subjoined the reason why they
should not fall off from their Christian profession,
namely, that if, after having acknowledged the truth,
they deliberately apostatize, there will remain to
them no pardon of sins. A sentiment similar to one
at 4, 6. (Dind.) It is observed by Braun, that ver.
26—32. form a connected section.

The ἁμαρτ. is explained by the best Commentators
of apostacy from the Christian faith; which, they
say, is required by what precedes; and they observe
that ἑκουσίως is added, since for such a sin ignorance
cannot be pleaded. But perhaps the ἅμ. may have
reference to the whole of what preceded, and denote
that kind of sinning which consists not only in
apostacy from the faith, and abandoning the reli-
gion, but also a sort of virtual apostasy, by the
non-observance of its injunctions: and ἑκουσίως is as
suitable on this as on the former interpretation ;
since such conduct is deliberate.

The phrase λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας is
compared with the φωτισθῆναι, supra 6, 4., and taken
to denote a knowledge of the true doctrines of the
Gospel. But it seems to imply also that of the mo-
ral duties which it enjoins. Now tosuch, the Apos-
tle adds, there remains no sacrifice of purification
(i. e. as long as they continue such), but only a
φοβερὰ τις ἐκδοχὴ κρίσεως, a horrible expectation of
future punishment ; for words signifying expectation
are used both in malam and in bonam partem. Carpz.
cites Philo 1070. προδοκία κακοῦ. Andhe might have
added Thucyd. 7. ἐλπίδα τοῦ φόβου, for φοβέραν ἐλ-
πίδα. On ἐδοχὴ itself see Sallier. on T. Mag. 980.
The word is used by the Classical writers; but not in

512 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

this sense. ‘The πυρὸς gyros plainly denotes the fiery
anger of God (with which expression may be com-
pared the διάπυρος and αἰθων of the Greek writers.
See Blomf. on Aischyl. Ag. 444); so often in the Old
Testament: andas fire is frequently said to eat up
what it consumes and destroys, so the wrath of God
destroys and casts into perdition τοὺς ὑπεναντίους,
namely, those who oppose his true religion, apostasy
either actual or virtual.

28. ἀθετήσας---ἀποθνήσκε. Here is an argument a
minori ad majus by which it is Shown, that those who
apostatize from the Christian religion will suffer
much heavier punishment than those who had sinned
against the Mosaic Law. (Rosenm.) ᾿Αθετήσας τις,
he who set at nought, violated, i. e. (as Rosenm. ex-
plains), ἑκουσίως. Now we are told that any trans-
gression of the Law, however minute, if it could be
traced to deliberation and wilfulness, was punished
with death. By the τὸν νόμον, Braun says, is espe-
cially meant the ceremonial law, for a violation of
which, he says, not even the High Priest, or the most
dignified persons were excused.

28. χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν, without mercy or pardon. The
ἐπὶ in ἐπὶ δυσὶ ἢ τρισὶ is rendered by Rosenm.,
‘* propter consensum duorum.” But I prefer, with
Dind., to take it to denote condition, i. e. literally,
“(if convicted) under the testimony of.” ᾿Αποθνήσ-
Ket, “is put to death.”

29, πόσω---ἐνύβρισας; These words place in a
very strong light the guilt of apostates and presump-
tuous sinners. ‘The interjected δοκεῖτε has great ele-
gance; as also the ἀξιωθ.; such kind of words
being of middle signification. Καταπατεῖν, like con-
culcare, is a term denoting the utmost contempt and
insult. I would compare Joseph. 1172, 32. φέρετε
δὴ τοίνυν φέρετε πατούμενα βλέποντες τὰ ἅγια and 1179,
10. πατήσαντες τοὺς νόμους. The τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης
κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος signifies, regarding the blood of
Christ, shed to ratify the Christian covenant, and by
which we Christians are sanctified unto God, as a

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 5138

thing common, as only the blood of a man, and that
a malefactor. For if Jesus were not the Messiah,
such he would necessarily be. The ἐνυβρ. answers
to the καταπ. just before. This term signifies to
grossly insult: and, after illustrating by examples
the use of the word, Dind. remarks that the Apostle
could not have employed a stronger term to desig- .
nate a contemner of the Gospel. And (we may
add from Bp. Middl.) it confirms the doctrine of the
personality of the Spirit; for it does not appear that
the verb ἐνυβρίξειν cam have for its object things or
qualities ; it is applicable to persons only.

With respect to the πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος, I cannot
but notice in the Foreign Commentators, with repro-
bation, the same perversion that so often attends their
interpretations of this word. Some (as Schleéus. in
his Lex.) would take it to denote the Christian reli-
gion; others, as Heinr. and Dind., recognize a peri-
phrasis for χάρις; thus effectually silencing the
word. And so Jaspis, ‘‘summo Dei beneficio.”
Somewhat preferable is the interpretation of Rosen.,
“ the gifts of the Spirit,” which every apostate casts
off. But I see no reason to abandon the interpreta-
tion of the antients, and earlier moderns, which is
ably supported by Braun and Ernesti, namely, the
Holy Spirit, the third person of the sacred Trinity,
‘* per quem (says Ernesti) gratia per Christum parta,
nobis obsignatur, dum ipse Spiritus Sanctus in nobis
fidem gignit, alit et conservat.” (See also Braun.)
It may be observed, that as in the former clause we
have Jesus Christ a person, so here we have the
Holy Spirit also a person. Finally, I cannot think
that apostacy alone is here meant, or (as Doddr.
supposes) the sin against the Holy Ghost; but all
wilful sin, and a presumptuously corrupt life; since
_ such must (as Diodati suggests) tend to that dread-
ful conclusion.

30. οἴδαμεν yerp—Kupios. The οἴδαμεν γὰρ τὸν εἰ-
πόντοι may be ἃ sort of formula of citation; though
very spirited. But I prefer, with Grot. and Ernesti,

VOL, VIII, 2L

S14 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

to regard the οἴδαμεν as strongly emphatical, 1. 6. (as
Grot. explains) ‘“‘ cogitemus quis et quantus,” &c. or
(as Ern.) “ novimus enim quantam vim ad ulciscen-
dum et puniendum habeat, quam acer, quam potius,”
Χο. So also Dind. The words are from Deut. 32, 35.
mow men, ‘tome is vengeance and retribution.”
But the Apostle’s language is founded partly on the
Hebrew and partly on the Sept. ; unless perhaps that
might be different from what it now is. Κρινεῖ 15 by
some antients and moderns rendered, ‘‘ avenge his
people.” (See Theoph., Est., Grot., and Rosenm.) By
others, as Menoch., Calvin, Dind., and Wolf, ‘* will
condemn and punish :? which the Jews fancied the
Almighty would never do to the Jsraelites. But I
prefer the more extensive sense, judge. And so
Bezaand Braun. By his people is meant his Church,
consisting of good and bad, to each of whom he will
‘* render according to his works.”

51. φοβερὸν----ϑῶντος, “* A horrible thing it is to fall
into the hands of the eternal God. So Cicero:
« Horribile est causam capitis dicere.” By hands is
meant power; and the context requires us to add,
“for punishment.” The ϑώντος may mean efernal,
or omnipotent ; or both; both being suggested by
the context; since to fall into the power, for punish-
ment, of a Being at once omnipotent and eternal, is
indeed HORRIBLE.

82. ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε---παθημάτων. Novo argumento
excitat illos Christianos, ut constantes esse in reli-
gione pergant, hoc nempe: eos hactenus jam varii
generis calamitates sustinuisse ; stolidé igitur agere
eos, qui post tantas calamitates fortiter superatas,
nunc demum deficiant. (Rosenm.) The use of the
adverb for the adjective (as here πρότερον for πρότε-
eas) is found in the best writers. Carpz. cites Philo
972. And he might have added, that it is common in
Thucydides. ΦΦωτισθέντες, “ after having been en-
lightened. (by the Gospel),” 1. 6. converted to the
true religion. Dind. compares Theophyl.: κηρύξας
--τοὺς πρὸς τῷ μεσημβρινῷ κλίματι ἐφώτισεν. ;

32. πολλὴν ἄθλησιν ὑπεμείνατε παθημάτων, * ye-en-

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 515

dured a great conflict of sufferings.” Here there is
an agonistical metaphor, as in aywvigerbas, Col. 1,
29. So the Syr. uses the Greek word ἀγών. See
Grot., who adds, that by the term παθήματα are
meant afflictions of every kind; as Rom. 8, 18. 2
Cor. 1, 6 and 7. Phil. 3,°:10, &c. The term too is
well illustrated by Bos. Obss. Misc. p. 92. I would
add Thucyd. 2, 45. παῖσι δι’ ---ἢ ἀδελφοῖς ὀρῶ μέγαν τὸν
ἀγώνα.

33. τοῦτο μὲν---θεατριϑόμενοι. This partitive use of
τοῦτο μὲν τοῦτο δὲ is common in the Classical writers.
See Wets., Kypke, and Munthe. ’Oveidiopois καὶ
θλίψεσι θεατριϑόμενοι. ‘This is a continuation of the
agonistical metaphor, with an allusion to the ἀγὼν
maintained with beasts by miserable wretches, thus
θεατριϑόμενοι, exposed to the gaze of the multitude as-
sembled at the theatre, who to brutality added con-
tumely; for as Tacit. Annal. 15. (cited by Carpz.)
says (with a reference to the Christians), ‘ Pereun-
tibus addita ludibria.” See also Sueton, Juvenal,
and other writers referred to by Carpz. That capi-
tal punishments were often inflicted in the theatres,
he proves from Philo 977 8. See the whole of his
very interesting note.

33. τοῦτο δὲ---γενηθέντες, “ and partly since ye were
made partakers in the persecutions of those that
were so circumstanced, namely, by sympathy and
consolation, and partly by assisting them. In dvac-
τρεφομένων Kypke and Carpz. recognize a continua-
tion of the metaphor. (See their notes.) It, however,
‘seems best, with the Syr., Casaub., Grot., and
Erasm., to suppose it said of those so treated. The
recent Commentators, Dind., Rosenm., and Heinr.,
take the term to here signify vivere. But that yields
a feeble sense; and the harshness which they com-
plain of is fancied, or may be imputed to the bold
character of this very metaphorical sentence.

34. καὶ yap τοῖς---συνεπαθήσατε. This seems meant
to be exegetical of the preceding, and to illustrate
the mode in which this κοινωνία was ministered. - The

ZL

516 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

sense is: “ You had (for instance—yag having here,
as often, the sense of exempli gratia) sympathy with
(me in) my bonds ;” namely, at Jerusalem. See Acts
21, 22. seq. Some MSS., Versions, and Fathers,
however, read τοῖς δεσμίοις. And this is preferred by
Grot., Hamm., Le Clerc, Mill, Bengel, Whitby,
Pierce, Morus, Storr., Heinr., and Dind. But I
cannot help thinking with Wolf, Carpz., Mich.,
Noesselt, Matthai, and Mackn., that the common
reading is the more genuine. I cannot enter at
large into the reasons; but I will only observe that
the MSS. are very few, and for the most part inter-
polated and emended. The common reading is
also the more difficult one; and as to the charge
brought against it, that it was devised for the pur-
pose of proving Paul to be the author of the Epistle,
there is not a shadow of evidence; nor is it likely
that such a paradiorthosis could occupy nearly all
the MSS. There is greater probability that the
more difficult reading δεσμοῖς would pass into the
easier decpiois; which would, of course, eject the
μου----κοὶ Try ἁρπάγην---προσδέξασθε, and “ ye joyfully
met, received, and endured the ravage and spoil of
your property.” ‘These were outrages doubtless
arising from the unbounded license of the mob, when
under the influence of avarice, whetted by supersti-
tion ; though too often worked upon by the higher
powers.

On the pera χαρᾶς the Commentators refer to
Acts 5, 41. Matt. 5, 12. and James 1,2. The use
here of προσδ. is rare; nor are the examples of M34,
Job. 33, 20. quite apposite.

84. γινωσκόντες---μένουσαν. The ἐν is omitted in
many MSS. of various recensions, Versions, and Fa-
thers, and seems to have arisen from the ew preced-
ing. Certainly the ἑαυτοῖς makes a better sense
without it, being a dativus commodi. “YrapEw, sub-
stance, wealth. The term often occurs in the Sept.,
and is also found in Acts 2,45. κτήματα καὶ ὑπάρξεις,
where see the note. "Eyev. By have, Grot. ob-

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. 517

serves, is here meant, have a claim to or title to any
thing. Kai μένουσαν, “anda durable one ;” as Matt.
6, 20. 19, 21. Mark 10, 21. Luke 12, 33. Prov. 8,
18. (cited by Grot.) The words ἐν οὐρανοῖς are by
many Critics supposed to have come from the margin.
But it is more probable that in the three MSS. in
which they are omitted (and which are all full of
emendations) they were thrown out, as difiguring
the beauty of the sentence.

35. μὴ ἀποβάλητε---μεγάλην. Tlapéyoia in this
Epistle often signifies constancy in the profession of
religion. (τη. and Carpz.) Or rather, confidence,
fortitude. In ἀποβ. Carpz., Rosenm., and Dindorf
recognize a metaphor taken from soldiers who (like
Horace) throw away their shields. And they com-
pare the expression shield of faith at Eph. 6, 16.
"Eye, “carries with it.’ Μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην,
“a great remuneration ;” namely, the ὕπαρξιν ἐν οὐρα-
vols.

36. ὑπομονῆς---ἐπαγγελίαν. The yap refers to a
clause omitted; 4. d. “(And well may I enjoin on
you the cultivation of this παῤῥησία) for ye have need
of patience and constancy.” “Iva τὸ θέλημα---ἐπαγ-
yeria, “so that (i. 6. if ye would expect this) after
having done and accomplished the will of God, ye
may obtain the promised salvation.”” By the θέλημα
τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant what God would have done, or suf-
fered: and it has reference to all the duties, whether
of doing, or suffering, which the circumstances in
which we are placed may impose upon us. See
Ernesti. ‘The Commentators, it may be observed,
usually limit the sense too much.

37, 38. ἔτι γὰρ---χρονιεῖ, The μικρὸν ὅσον signifies
avery little while. ‘Yo the examples of the Philolo-
gists 1 add Max. Tyr. D. 24, 6. and 1, 469. σμικρὸν
ὅσον, (where see Markl.) and Polyzen. 8, 10, '711. ἐπὶ
πλεῖστον ὅσον, a considerable time. The ὁ ἐρχόμενος
(he that is to come) was, as we find from the Gos-
pels, an usual title of the Messiah. See Whitby.
The passage introduced is taken from Hab. 2, 3 and

518 HEBREWS, CHAP. X.

4. It is thought the the Apostle accommodates the
language of the Prophet to his own times, and that
he inserts the two clauses for the sake of the conclu-
sion. See Mackn. Between the words of St. Paul
-and those both of the Hebrew and the Sept. (though
the latter is chiefly adhered to, for the sake of the
conclusion,) there is a remarkable discrepancy.
Some propose emendations of the Hebrew text;
while others (as Pococke) maintain that the text as
it stands is susceptible of the sense of the Sept. See
more in Mackn. and Slade.

"Hée.. This has in the Hebr. 827 83, “he will
surely come.” Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ϑήσεται. Also
cited in Rom. 1, 17. and Gal. 3, 11. The sense
here seems to be: “ The just, because of his implicit
faith, shall obtain salvation.” See the learned note
of Ernesti. Kal ἐὰν ὑποστείληται---αὐτῷῴ, ‘* But if
any one draw back, give way to fear, (so Hesych.
explains, φοβεῖται. See Gal. 2, 12.), and either apos-
tatize, or compromise his principles, or, through
failing in his expectations, cease to act up to the
duties of a Christian,” Οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή pov ἐν
αὐτῷ, “my soul shall have no pleasure in him,” i. 6.
he shall be exposed to my displeasure. Α litotes.

39. Ἡμεῖς---ψυχῆς. The Apostle (Theophyl. ob-
serves) softens the harshness of the οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ, &c. by
asentiment expressive of contidence in their firmness
and constancy, which must have been gratifying.
With respect to the words themselves, they are some-
what obscure, from the dense brevity of the phrase-
ology; but the context will guide us to their mean-
ing. Thus ὑποστολῆς, as is plain from the preceding
ὑποστείληται and the antithetical πίστεως, stands for
drawing back, and timidity; Carpz. rightly subauds
τέκνα or viol. It is an Hebrew mode of expression,
denoting timidity and doubt. The εἰς ἀπωλείαν, and
εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς show the result and tendency of
each kind of conduct. By the περιποίησις is denoted,
not the possession (as recent Commentators explain),
but the gaining or saving of the soul. So Ernest,

HEBREWS, CHAP. X. XI. 519

“ut animam lucremur, zternam salutem consequa-
mur, servemur.” And so Theophyl., who para-
€ “ ᾽ 5 9° > / A
phrases thus: Ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμεν τῶν ἀπολλυμένων διὰ
Ν ε “ \ ᾽ aie ’ Ἂ , > \
τὸ ὑποστέλλεσθαι Kal ἀπορῥᾳθύμειν ἢ διστάϑειν, ἀλλὰ
τῶν ἐν τῇ πίστει βεβαίων, ὧστε περιποιῆσαι τὰς ἐαυτών
ψυχὰς, τουτέστι, κτήσασθαι, φύλαξαι, καὶ σῶσαι.

CHAP. ΧΙ.

Ver. 1. From the mention of faith, the Apostle takes occasion to
describe its nature and efficacy. The δὲ has therefore a transitive
force, and may be rendered now. I would paraphrase: ‘* Now faith
(such as that I have mentioned, and by which the just shall live)
is a firm expectation and confident persuasion of the existence of
things not yet seen.” Ὑπόστασις isfrom ὑφέίστασθαι͵ to firmly consist,
and subsist. So the anticnts and earlier moderns render, the sub-
stance, οὐσία ΟΥ̓ οὐσίωσις, i.e. that which makes them subsist and
be. But this interpretation, Ernesti observes, yields scarcely a per-
tinent sense. And as ὑφίστασθαι, in the later Greek writers, fre-
quently signifies existimure, he, im common with most recent Com-
mentators, explains it firma expectatio; as supra 3, 14. Others of
the earlier and later moderns explain it base, foundation. But this
sense scems not suitable here. See the notes of Grot., Carpz., and
Elsner.

"EXeyyxos usually signifies a demonstralion. And so it is here ex-
plained by Theophyl.: δεῖξις, φανέρωσις. Carpz. explains, demon-
strata cognilio. Dind. (more properly) documentum, that being the
signification in familiar phraseology. Rosenm. interprets it, firm
and undoubted conviction, And so Luther, and (nearly) Doddr.,
and also Hallet ap. Doddr., who explains; ‘‘ Such a kind of reason
and argument, as both convinces the understanding, and engages a
man to act according to that conviction.” It is, however, easier
to perceive the general meaning of the Apostle than to determine
the exact sense of each term ; since the sentence is worded popula-
riter, and not with philosophical accuracy; and in this and the
whole of what follows may plainly be recognised the ardent spirit
of the Apostle, which does not descend to petty niceties. In both
the above terms we are to understand that which causes the thing
tobe. So Theophyl. (from Chrys.) annotates thus: οἷον ἡ ἀνάσ-
τασις οὔπω ὑφέστηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ πίστις ὑφιστᾷ αὐτὴν; καὶ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν
ἡμῖν τίθησι. And on ἔλεγχος he observes: ποιεῖ γὰρ ταῦτα βλέ-
πεσθαι τῷ νῷ ἡμῶν ὡς παρόντα. See the admirable exposition of
Chrys., as translated by Dr. Hales ap. Valpy.

By the faith now about to be treated on, and which respects
things past as well as future, is (as the best Commentators say) to
be understood a general faith and belief in the sayings and promises
of God. For by the examples the Apostle brings forward of an-

520 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

tient times, it is plain he does not actually treat of faith in Christ’;
though from the former, as a genus, proceeds the Jatter as a more
excellent species, namely, a Gospel faith, which, as being reposed
in Christ, does, in fact, rest in God, since whatever Christ said, he
said in the name of God. See Ern., Carpz., Dind., and Rosenm.

2. ἐν ταύτῃ---πρεσβύτεροι, “ On account of (3) this
faith our ancestors were accounted praise-worthy.”
The πρεσβ., like veteres, πατέρες, signifies ancestors,
the Patriarchs, Prophets, and others, of whom some
are then mentioned. Maprupeiv τινι signifies to bear
witness to, and is almost always used in a good sense
for to praise. See Schleus. Lex. The antients, and
early moderns, supply a Deo; the recent ones, ab
hominibus. But both may be united. ‘The ἐν, like
the Hebr. 3, and διὰ, signifies propter, on account of.
So Beza, Pisc., Rosenm., and Dind.

8. πίστει voodpev—yeyovevas. Πίστις, Dind. ob-
serves, here signifies a full persuasion that the things
recorded in the Old Testament are true. For now
the Apostle employs the term in its more extensive
sense ; and then proceeds to use it in its limited
one.” The words may be rendered : ‘by faith it is
that we understand the universe κατηορτίσθαι ῥήματι
Θεοῦ, was created at the fiat of God’s will.” Karag-
τίϑειν signifies properly to repair, make whole what
is broken, torn, or disordered : and thus it is in the
Sept. and in the present passage used of the crea-
tion of the universe; since that carries with it a
notion of adjusting, digesting, &c., which is very
applicable to the chaos ‘ without form and void,”
out of which the world was created. The ῥήματι Θεοῦ
(i. 6. the fiat) has reference to the sublime passage
of Gen. 1, 3. And so elsewhere it is said: ‘“ He
spake the word, and they were made; he com-
manded, and they were created.”

3. εἰς τὸ μὴ ---γεγονέναι. These words present some
difficulty: but the best Commentators from Heins.
to Rosenm. have seen that εἰς τὸ is for ὥστε; and the
μὴ is to be referred to Φαινομένων ; a transposition
(as Heinr. observes) usual to the Hellenists. (See
Raphel.) So 2 Macc. 7, 28. ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 521

αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός. The sentiment is thus explained by
Rosenm.: * That the whole visible world was created
by the sole will of God, we learn by faith; for that
creation does not come under our view, as being
long past. Now we see trees arise from trees, ani-
mals generated from animals, and men from men.
But the first trees, animals, and men had not their
origin from such as now exist, and are seen. This
is therefore said, that we may the more readily be-
lieve that God can produce what we do not see.

4. πίστει πλείονα---Θεῷ, ‘‘ By the virtue of faith
Abel offered up a better and more acceptable sacri-
fice to God than Cain.” So Chrys. explains the
πλείονα by ἐντιμωτέραν. Braun compares the Hebr.
anv. And so in Matt. 6, 25. 12,41. Παρὰ Κάϊν
is put populariter for παρὰ τῆς τοῦ Ketiv, as it is exr-
pressed by the Syr. Now the offering was better and
more acceptable, as proceeding from faith. The na-
ture of this faith, and in what it differed from that
of Cain, is admirably shown and illustrated by Abp.
Magee on the Atonement, Illust. No. 64 & 65.,
whom see, or the extracts in Slade and Valpy. See
also Mackn. and Hallet, by them cited, and other
writers referred to.

4. δι’ ys—aurod, * on account of which sacrifice he
was borne testimony to (by God) that he was
righteous,” i.e. pious and virtuous; or, “ he ob-
tained from God the praise of piety.” Thus he is
called by Philo δίκαιος ; as he is also in Matt. 23, 35.
He may indeed be so called κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, as being the
first and most eminent example of it. The words
paprupotytos—QOecod are (I think) exegetical of the δι᾽
ἧς, kc. The sense is: “God himself bearing testi-
mony to: his offerings, that they were just ;” which
implies approbation of them. On the nature of, and
the modein which this approbation was signified, we
are left in the dark; and the Commentators, of
course, abound in conjectures, which (and especially
the speculations of the recent foreign Commentators)
I shall not detail. I cannot but suspect (though it

522 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

seems to have occurred to none of the interpreters)
that the Apostle was well informed on this point,
and supposed his readers to be so, and that by éra-
dition. By tradition, too, Theodot., in rendering
Gen. 4, 4. καὶ ἐπεῖδεν 6 Θεὸς ἐπὶ ᾿Αβὲλ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις
αὐτοῦ has ἐνεπύρισε for ἐπεῖδεν. I suspect that some
copies had ἐπεῖδεν---αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνεπύρισε, from tradition,
doubtless, yet deserving of high credit, as not rest-
ing merely on oral testimony, but probably recorded
in those antient writings found in the antiquities of
the Hebrew nation, of which Josephus often makes
mention, and which he used in forming his cele-
brated history. Besides, this is supported by the
mode in which God usually signified his approba-
tion. Fire from heaven, it seems, consumed the
flesh of the ““ choice firstlings” sacrificed by Abel ;
while Cain’s “ fruits of the ground” remained un-
touched. Finally, we may very well believe in, what
(as Grot. tells us, on the passage of Genes.) even
Julian credited.

Kai ov αὐτῆς, “and by that faith and righteousness
so evinced.” For such, I agree with the antients,
seems to be meant by the ἧς, at which the moderns
stumble. In the readings λαλεῖται and λαλεῖ the
Commentators are at issue. The most eminent
Critics agree in preferring λαλεῖ, though resting only
on the authority of a few very antient MSS., the
Syriac and Coptic Versions, and some antient
Fathers. And certainly, if λαλεῖται cannot (as
Valckn. seems to have proved) be taken in a middle
or deponent sense, that reading deserves the prefer-
ence, as yielding a sense far worthier of the Apostle:
for the other can only signify, “is spoken of;”
which, as Dind. remarks, is a third (and frigid) repe-
tition of the same thing; while, according to the
one in question, the sense will be as follows:
“though now dead, his faith and righteousness
speak with a loud voice, and call upon us to imitate
his example.” See 12,4. That even the dead may

guratively be said to speak, no critic can doubt ;

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 523

since even inanimate things are said to speak. See
Rosenm., who cites the passage of Virgil, where of
the punishment of Phlegyas it is said: ‘* magna
testatur voce per umbras, Discite justitiam moniti.”
5. πίστει ᾿Ενὼχ--- Θεῷ. This is called, by Mr.
Slade, a commentary upon the elliptical expression
in Gen. 5, 24., where it is said of Enoch, he “ was
not; for God took him.” Most of the recent Com-
mentators, however, as Dind., Rosenm., and Mich.,
regard it as founded in error. “ For (say they) in
the passage of Genesis we find not but that Enoch
died ; and nothing is said to define how he was trans-
lated, whether alive or dead. ‘The formula, God
ΤΡ, &c., cannot of itself signify, God removed him
alive; nor can οὐχ εὐρίσκετο and 122N signify any
more than “ he ceased to be.” But to this I must
demur. Will these moderns pretend to be better
judges of the force of Hebrew phraseology than the
antient Hebrew Interpreters themselves, who, from
the earliest ages downwards, have interpreted the
_ words of removal alive? i.e. the being, as we say,
translated. As far as the Sept. Version goes, the
position is manifestly false; for its language evi-
dently conveys the idea of a translation ; they render
the Mp? by Θεὸς αὐτὸν μετέθηκεν, which determines
the point; and the 1278, by οὐκ edpicxero; which
goes very far to determine it. And the same will
apply to Sirach 49, 14. This translation, too, is
evidently supported by Josephus and Philo. But
what reason (it may be asked) had the authors of the
Sept. Version and the Jewish Interpreters for sup-
posing this ¢ranslation? Because (it may be an-
swered) there really is something very peculiar and
mysterious in the expression. For (as Whitby ob-
serves) of all the rest it is said, that they died; but
of him this is not said, but only that 128, he was
not, for God took him. Neither is this said any
where else in the Mosaic writings. Suppose, in-
deed, the expressions 122°8 and mp are doubtful ;

524 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ,

yet the context,* and the circumstances of the case,
lead to the interpretation invariably adopted by the
antients, and confirmed by its being adopted by the
inspired writer.

With respect to the mode in which the translation
was effected, of that we are not informed: but it
seems a probable conjecture of Mackn. and others,
that the body of Enoch (as also that of Elijah) was
fitted for its new state by that sort of change which
the bodies of the righteous who are alive at the day
of judgment will go through. With the notions of
the Rabbins (which may be seen in Whitby) we have
nothing to do.

6. χωρὶς δὲ πίστεως---γίνεται. The phrase evager-
τεῖν τινι signifies to do what is pleasing to any one ;
and, as applied fo God, it must denote faith in his:
existence, and obedience to his will, whether as re-
vealed in Scripture, or in the book of nature.

The words πιστεῦσαι--- γίνεται are exegetical of the
preceding ; and the sense seems to be simply this:
« There can be no worshipping of God without a
firm belief in his existence, and that He will reward
those who study to do his will.” For faith in his
existence must precede worship of him; and who
would worship a Being who remained an uncon-
cerned spectator of what passes on the earth, and
with whom is no retribution? Such seems to be all

* For the εὐηρέστησεν ᾿Ενὠχ τῷ Θεῷ immediately preceding,
plainly indicates the cause ; as is suggested by St. Paul in the words
πρὸ γὰρ τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ μεμαρτύρηται εὐηρεστηκέναι TH Θεῷ.
To understand death would be frigid.

+ Thus it appears that it is not correct to call the words of St.
Paul (adopted from the Sept.) a commentary on the Hebrew; and
still less an accommodation of Jewish opinions; as do Dind. and
Rosenm. As to the opinion of early ages, of which Dind. makes
mention, that pious or great persons were supposed to be removed
from the world without death, with this we have nothing to do.
For the stories of Hercules, Semiramis, and Romulus (to, which they
advert), were, of course, mereimpostures ; though formed probably
on the traditional account, in the early nations, of this translation
of the Patriarch Enoch.

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 525

that is meant, and no philosophical refinements are
to be sought. The μισθοδοσία, Carpzov thinks, in-
cludes the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked.
And so Theophyl.: Ei γὰρ μὴ πιστεύση τις ἀντίδοσιν
εἶναι καλῶν καὶ κακῶν, οὐκ ἄν εὐχρεστήση. Llws γὰρ ἂν
τὴν ἐπίπονον τῆς ἀρετῆς ὁδὸν βαδίσῃ, μὴ πεισθεὶς εἶναι ἐν
τῷ μέλλοντι πολλαπλασίας καὶ μονιμωτέρας τὰς ἀμοιβάς ;

The ἀδύνατον must be taken, populariter, for, ‘* it
is impossible to suppose.” It is plain that ἐκϑητεῖν is
here used, like the Heb. WW and wpa, of an earnest
endeavour to do the will of God. On the sentiment
that God is a rewarder of his faithful servants, Grot.,
Wets., &c. adduce a vast number of Classical passages.

7. πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Nwe—airov. The term
χρηματίϑεσθαι is often, as here, used of having a
divine revelation, or being divinely inspired. So
Theophyl. : Σημείωσαι δὲ, ὅτι χρηματίϑει Θεὸς, χρη-
ματίξει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα" κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον περὶ τοῦ
Συμέων. Ἣν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος
τοῦ ἁγίου. Θεὸς ἄρα τὸ Πνεῦμα.

7. περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων, ““ concerning things
not yet seen, but only to be viewed by the eye of
faith.” ‘There is a reference to ver. 1. πίστις ἔλεγ-
χος οὐ βλεπόμενων. Now the things unseen were the
deluge and the events accompanying it.

7. εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασε κιβωτὸν. The εὐλαβ. is
by some moderns, as Grot., Vatab., Schmid, and
Schleus., taken to signify ‘* metu diluvii.”? And so
the Vulg. and Theophyl. But that sense seems in-
consistent with the faith ascribed to him ; though it
might admit of modification. I prefer, with most
moderns, as Ernesti, Rosenm., and Carpzov, &c. to
take εὐλαβ. of religious reverence in respect to the
oracle. Κιβωτὸν. This word, like Man, signifies
chest ; but might very well be applied to ships of a
square form. Many learned moderns have, how-
-ever, supposed that the ark was of a round form, as
better adapted to resist the waves. And that, in-
deed, seems to have been a very antient form ; since
in Thucydides we have perpetual mention of round

526 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

ships; and we are told that the Corinthians first
made long ships, or triremes. The above Critics
found their opinion on the ark being called πλοῖον by
Berosus ap. Joseph. But that is no proof at all.
And common sense may show how improbable it
were that the first attempts at ship-building should
produce a round ship : a form which requires a de-
gree of science and skill such as we cannot suppose
Noah to have possessed ; especially, too, when we
consider the immense size of the ark, larger than a
first-rate ship of the line. Besides, the opinion in
question is directly at variance with the Mosaic ac-
count, which shows it to have been quite oblong,
300 by 50; though there is nothing there said to
compel us to suppose a square, and we may suppose
the corners to have been rounded off, very much
after the manner of the Chinese junks, which, in a
country where nothing changes, may be supposed of
the very form of the most antient ships, and those
would probably be made after the model of the ark.

Ar ἧς, i.e. (as Erasm., Rosenm., Grot., and Beza
explain) ‘* by the building of which ark.” Rather,
« by which faith.” Karexgwe τὸν κόσμον. For (as
Grot. observes) any one is said to condemn others
who, by his own deeds, shows what others ought to
have done; and thus convicts them of blame for not
having so done ; as Matt. 12, 41 & 42. See Theoph.
By δικαιοσύνης is meant the reward of righteousness ;
as sin is sometimes put for the punishment of sin.

8. πίστει καλούμιενος---ἔρχεται. Construe πίστει
with ὑπήκουσε; and before ἐξελθεῖν subaud ὥστε, or
εἰς ro. Ernesti observes that καλεῖν is used of the
offer of any divine benefits; and κλῆσις, in the New
Testament, signifies not only what God has offered,
but what he has given. Eis κληρονομίαν, “ for a pos-
session for himself and posterity.” The μὴ émora-
μενος ποῦ ἔρχεται Rosenm. renders, “* nesciebat, qua
et qualis erat illa terra.” The truth is, this seems a
popular mode of expression, such as is not uncom-
mon; and Abraham probably was by no means ig-

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 527

norant of the country, or its productions; but went
without knowing whither he was going, as not know-
ing where it would please God he should settle in
the land. So ‘TheophyL. : οὐδὲ ἤδει, TIS ἐστιν ἡ γῆ
ὅλως ἐκείνη εἰς ἣν καλεῖται.

9. πίστει παρῴκησεν---αὐτῆς. The εἰς τὴν γῆν is for
ἐν τῇ γῆ. And τῆς ἐπαγγελίας is a genitive of the
substantive, for the cognate adjective, or par ticiple.
Παρῴκησε is πάροικος ἦν, 1, 6. ἀλλογενὴς, Sojourner, in
opposition to an ἐπιγενής. Asa proof of which he
even had to purchase the cave of Machpelah as a
burying-place for his family. In illustration of his
being a sojourner, it is added ἐν σκήναις κατοικήσας,
“ dwelling in tents ;’’ which we may suppose would
be the case, since the building of a house implies a
property in the land (see Grot. ); whereas setting up
a tent by: no means does this.*

9. μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ. This is strangely ren-
dered, in the EK. V. and other Versions (see Doddr.
and Mackn.), with, &c. The true force of the ex-
pression (which seems to be Hebraic) was well seen
by the antients. Thus Theophyl. explains: καὶ ὃ
᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ 6 Ἰακὼβ οὕτω ταύτην κατώκησαν ὡς ἀλλο-
τρίαν. And so J. Capell. and Grot., who observe
that it denotes parity and mode ; 4. d. « as did also
Isaac and Jacob after them, to whom the same pro-
mise belonged.” See Grot. It seems meant to be
implied: “ and yet they, too, had faith in the pro-
mises.”” See Theophyl.

10. €&edéyero—é Θεὸς. ‘These words illustrate the
nature of that faith so conspicuous in all Abraham’s
peregrinations. ‘The sense is: ‘‘ He bore his pere-
grinations under the hope of the city that hath solid
foundations,” as opposed to the ταῖς σκήναις at ver. 9.
Now by this is doubtless meant, not Jerusalem (as

* And in those early periods, when population was very thin,
even foreigners seem to have been allowed to fix tents, and bring
cattle to graze where the land was not occupied by the natives.
Something after the manner of what are called the squatéers, in ue
back settlements of America.

528 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

some Commentators suppose), even in the literal
sense, but (as appears from ver. 16. compared with
13 & 14.) the heavenly city, heaven. So Theophyl.:
ἐξεδέχοντο τὴν οὐράνιον πόλιν, ἥτις ἀληθινοὺς ἔχει θεμε-
λίους, ἀεὶ ἑστώτας, καὶ μηδέποτε σαθρουμένους. And so
Grot., Le Clerc, and Rosenm. Dind. and Heinr.
lose themselves in speculation. “Hs τεχνίτης καὶ dy-
p-rougyos ὃ Θεός. It is observed, by Chrys., that God,
though the τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς of the whole uni-
verse, is especially said so of the heavenly city, since
in heaven chiefly shines forth the majesty of the
Divine wisdom and power.
11. πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ--- ἔλαβε.

On this passage the recent Foreign Commentators stumble ex-
ceedingly ; and afford a notable specimen both of their delicacy and
their judgment. Questions of the sort they enter into are more fitted
for a work on surgery and midwifery than the exposition of the
word of God on so deeply serious a subject as that of the preter-
natural conception of the mother of the faithful. We will therefore
leave their discussions in medio, which certainly cannot be appli-
cable in the present case, since miraculous power was exerted upon
Sarah as well as Abraham. ‘Thus it is said, Gen. 21, 1. ““" And the
Lord visited Sarah.” It is strange, then, that the recent Commen-
tators should almost invariably adopt the conjecture of Michaelis,
viz. for αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα to read αὐτῇ Lapa. For, not to mention the
harshness of the two Datives, αὐτῇ Zappa, just after another Dative,
the occurrence of αὐτὴ is sufficient to condemn this conjecture ;
since, in the sense thus arising, αὐτὴ could have had no place. Be-
sides, as Grot. observes, from the examples of men, the Apostle passes
to women, that he may excite those of both sexes to the virtue of
faith. But why, then (it may be asked) did those Critics unani-
mously adopt that conjecture? Because, forsooth, the καταβολὴν
σπέρματος is not accordant with physical precision. What, then, is
nothing to be allowed for the delicacy of the sacred writer? but he
must express himself with the physical accuracy of an Hippocrates ?
I shall not enter further into particulars; but only observe that the
obscurity solely arose from delicacy ; and that the true force of the
words is that which was laid down by Chrys. p. 548, 15. (adduced
by that writer in a Homily on this Epistle) eis τὸ κατασχεῖν ro
σπέρμα; εἰς ὑποδοχὴν δυνάμιν ἔλαβεν ἡ νεκρωμένη, καὶ ἡ στεῖρα,
for she was both barren as well as old. And so Theophyl.: ἐνεδυ-
ναμώθη eis τὸ ὑποδέξασθαι καὶ κρατῆσαι τὸ καταβληθὲν eis αὐτὴν
σπέρμα τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ. I am gratified te find that the above mode of
interpretation has the support of the acute Heinr. and the learned
Dindorf.

I must not omit to observe that many Critics would, on the au-
thority of some three MSS, and the Vulg., omit ἔτεκεν; but (I

~~

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 529

think) on very insufficient ‘grounds. For it seems plain that the
omission was purely from conjecture and emendation: and the
MSS. are such as are full of corrections; nay, Ernesti observes,
there is reason to suppose that the Codex Alexandrinus was occa-
sionally altered from the Vulg.

11. ἐπεὶ πιστὸν ἡγήσατο τὸν ἐπαγγειλάμενον, ““ since
she had judged him faithful and veracious who had
promised.”

12. διὸ καὶ---ἀναρίθμητος. It is well observed, by
Grot. and Rosenm., that the δὲ must be referred to
both Abraham and Sarah, i.e. the faithof both. At
ag ἑνὸς some subaud αἵματος or σπέρματος, as of Abra-
ham and Sarah. But I prefer, with Zeger, Camer.,
Rosenm., Ern., &c., σώματος, which Grot. and most
Critics understand of Abraham. It seems better,
however, with Chrys., Theophyl., and others, to refer
it to Sarah. Which, too, appears to be more agree-
able to what precedes: and the Apostle himself, at
Rom. 4, 19., speaking of the faith of Abraham, says :
οὗ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα νενεκρωμένον καὶ τὴν νέκρω-
σιν τῆς μήτρας Σάῤῥας.

Καὶ ταῦτα, et quidem, and that. The force of the
vevexpwpevov requires no explanation. ‘The phrases
καθὼς τὰ ἄστρα, &c. are plainly Oriental and popular
hyperboles, yet sometimes found in the Western
writers. Out of several examples I have collected 1

select the following. Aristoph. Lysistr. 1260. ἦν

γὰρ τὦνδρες οὐκ ἐλάσσως τᾶς Yappas, τοι Πέρσαι.

18. κατὰ πίστιν---ἀσπασάμιενοι. It was believed by
the Patriarchs, that though ¢hey could not see the
actual fulfilment of the Divine promises, yet these
would certainly be fulfilled in their descendants.
They may, however, be supposed to have discerned
the commencement of their fulfilment, in having chil-
dren from whom should arise so numerous a poste-
rity. (Dind.)

At the οὗτοι πάντες Commentators stumble. Grot.
and Sykes refer it to all the descendants downwards.
But of this opinion Whitby has shown the futility.
It must, with Rosenm. and Dind., be understood of
those that went before, i. 6. (as Chrys. and Theophyl.

VOL. VIII. 2M

530 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

limit it) all that did die. My λαβόντες τὰς ἐπαγγε-
alas, “ without having received the promises.” It
is plain that these promises were not so much tem-
poral as eternal. See Whitby, Doddr., Mich., and
Abp. Magee, referred to by Slade. Κατὰ πίστιν,
‘< with confidence in the promises, both temporal,
and eternal.” ᾿Αλλὰ πόῤῥωθεν αὐτὰς ἰδόντες, “ view-
ing them with the eye of faith.” ᾿Ασπασάμενοι,
‘* embracing with delight.” Ὁμολογήσαντες ὅτι---- γῆς,
“ seeing and acknowledging that they were strangers
and sojourners on earth, as they were in the land
οἵ Canaan.” Taperidnpo, sojourners. The terms
properly signifies one who lives by another. See
Schleus. Lex.

14,15. οἱ yap τυιαῦτα--- ἀνακάμψαι. ᾿Ἐμφανίϑουσιν
plainly show, signify. “Ori πατρίδα ἐπιϑητοῦσι, αρ-
petunt, “ that they are seeking after and desiring to
have a country (either naturally or metaphorically
such); which, as long as they remained sojourners,
could not be the case. Different from the common
principle among the antients, that every place where
he can live well is, to a wise man, his country. See
the passages of Philo, cited by Carpz. and Wets.

15. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκείνης ἐμνημόνευον. It is observed,
by Dind., that μνημονεύειν indicates the desire and
love with which we remember any thing, like the
Heb. 45) in: Geni-8,>1. sand’ Ἐ 3: 8: Ὁ. 676.8 Sg
therefore (says Rosenm.) they called themselves
strangers, because they were sojourners in Canaan,
and accounted Chaldea their country, they might
have returned thither. Between the departure of
Abraham from Chaldea and the death of Jacob,
there was time for the Patriarchs to have returned
thither if they had loved it as a country.” If they
had sought a country (as observes Braun) no one
were more desirable than Chaldza, then far superior
in fertility and wealth to Canaan.

16. νυνὶ δὲ, Χο. ‘It is plain, then, that they dwelt
only on the promises of God respecting the posses-
sion of Canaan, as a country, by their posterity ; as

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 531

they did of the attainment by themselves of another
country, even a heavenly,” εἰς ἥν (says ‘Theophy].)
οὔπω εἶχε καιρὸν ἀναβῆναι. On the sentiment of hea-
ven being man’s proper country, numerous passages
are cited by: Wets. and Carpzov; as Anaxag. ap.
Diog. Laert. 2., who, to some one asking οὐδὲν σοι
μέλε: τῆς πατρίδος ; answered: Εὐφήμει, ἐμοὶ yap καὶ
σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος" δείξας τὸν οὐρανόν. ‘To
which I add Plut. Non posse suav. ᾧ. 29, 1. οἱ μὲν
ἑτέρου βίου τὸν θάνατον ἀρχὴν χρείττονος νομίξοντες, ἐὰν τ᾽
ἐν ἀγαθοῖς ὠσὶ μᾶλλον ἥδονται, μείϑονα προσδοκῶντες.
Plato: ἄνθρωπος φύτον οὐράνιον, οὐκ ἔγγειον. See also
Philo Jud. 196. fin. and Clem. Alex. 71 c.

16. διὸ οὐκ---πόλιν, “* Wherefore (because they had
this undoubting faith in the Divine promises) God
did not disdain to be called thetr* God, (and pro-
tector and benefactor).”? Οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται αὐτοὺς,
“did not disdain, but vouchsafed.’’ The present,
Beza and Grot. observe, is for the preterite, Histori-
corum more ; as supra, ver. 14. At επικαλεῖσθαι must
be understood ὥστε. ‘The row. is rightly rendered,
by Grot. and Rosenm., destined (as Matt. 25, 34.,
where see the note), and these words ἡτοίμασε yap
αὐτοὺς πόλιν, they observe, are exegetical of the ὁ
Θεὸς αὐτῶν. By the πόλιν is plainly meant heaven.

17, 18. πίστει προσενήνοχεν---ἀναδεξάμιενος. LI poc-
ᾧΦέρω is a sacrificial term, and signifies to bring (πρὸς)
to the altar; as James 2, 21. Now this Abraham
did ; and being prepared to sacrifice his son, he had
the same merit of obedience as if he had actually
sacrificed him. That this was always considered a
full and consummate sacrifice we are told by Philo
374 Ὁ.

Πειραϑόμενος, “ trying his faith, and putting it to
the utmost proof.’ Μονογενῆ, namely, by a lawful
wife. (Rosenm.) ‘The second clause of the sentence

* For (as Grot. observes) God was particularly called the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and so named by Himself, not only
during their life, but after their death. Now the notion of God
implies also that of favour, protection, and benefit.

2m 2

532 . HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

is, in some measures a parallelism: for the same cir-
cumstance of the offering up is brought forward,
with the addition of the τὸν μονογενῆ. And the words
οὐ Tas ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμιενος seem meant to sug-
gest the reason for the offering, namely, that he had
received the promises, and admitted them into his
heart by faith. For I assent to Grot. and Rosenm.
that ἀναδ. is more significant than the simple dex.
(though it is by some thought to be synonymous
with it.) And this appears to be required by the
circumstances of the case ; for the faith shown by
Abraham was the most wonderful instance of this
virtue on record ; since here (as Theophyl. observes)
not only did nature struggle hard, but the word of
God wrestled with the Divine order; He who had
said, “ To thee and thy seed will I give the land,”
ordering him, “ Slay thy son.”’ It is also observed,
by Theophyl., that Abraham was tried, not that God
wanted a proof of his virtue, but that we might learn
that virtue is evinced by experience and in works.

18. πρὸς ὃν ἐλαλήθη, “to whom, or concerning
whom,” &c. ‘These words are meant to set forth
the implicit faith of Abraham. The sense is: “ ‘That
Abraham, to whom it had been said by God: In
Isaac shall there be named a posterity to thee.”
Most recent Commentators, indeed, as Ern., Schmid,
and Rosenm., take the κληθ. simply in the sense of
esse. “ For (says Rosenm.) verba nominalia seepe
sunt realia.” ‘Thus Ern. renders: “ Isaac erit auc-
tor posteritatis tue.” Dind. and Heinr.: “ will be
called forth, arise, and be born.” But this would
require exxay9. I would therefore acquiesce in the
first detailed interpretation, or take cay. as a sort of
vox pregnans for, “ shall be and become famous.”
And so, nearly, Grot.

19. λογισάμενος ὅτι---ὁ Θεὸς. This shows the rea-
son why Abraham, though the promise of posterity
by Isaac seemed precise, yet did not hesitate to offer
up his son. (Dind.)

Λογισάμιενος is to be referred to προσενήνοχεν. Re-

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 533

flecting that, though Isaac should die, yet the pro-
mise of posterity by him would be sure, inasmuch
as the same omnipotence that at first brought him
into being could even raise him from the dead.”
Such seems to be the meaning of the passage;
though it must be confessed that it is no easy matter
to determine the sense of the clause ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐν
παραβολῇ ἐκομίσατο, of which four interpretations
have been proposed. Some, as J. Capell., Grot.,
Heins., Calvin, Scaliger, Wolf, Warburton, Sykes,
and Stebbing, think it is meant that the whole trans-
action was parabolical, or typical of the method God
would pursue for the salvation of men. And this is
supported by the antients ; and may possibly be the
true interpretation. Yet it seems somewhat harsh
and arbitrary. See Ern.and Dind. 2. Hamm., our
Translators, Whitby, and Doddr., assign the sense:
““ from whence also he had (originally) received him
figuratively, namely, from his own dead body and
the dead womb of Sarah.” See Rom. 4, 19, 3.
Grot., Capell., Heins., Calvin, Scaliger, and Ro-
senm., interpret: “ from whence also, by a sort of
image of the resurrection, he received him from the
dead.” Thus ἐκ νεκρῶν will be repeated. For (they
observe) Isaac was, in a manner, dead, in his father’s
opinion and his own; and he was restored to him, as
it were, from the gates of the grave. A comparison
found elsewhere; as 2 Cor. 1, 9 & 10. 4 Cam.,
Raphel, Krebs, Dind., and Schleus., take ἐν παραβολῇ
for παραβολῶς ; adducing some examples of πάρα-
Porxws from Joseph. and otherwriters. And, indeed,
it frequently occurs in the Classicalauthors; but not
in Scripture, and ἐν παραβολῇ no where. Now as
few interpretations of the New Testament, resting
solely on Classical usage, are well founded, so nei-
ther, I think, is this. See the details in Dind. Of
the three former any one may be the true; though
I think the second, as being the simplest and most
natural, deserves the preference.

20. πίστει---ἰ Ησαῦ. At περὶ μελλόντων subaud

584 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

προφητεύων. Or the words may connect’with πίστει,
i.e. “faith respecting things future,” or “ because
he had believed in God that great and glorious
things would come to pass in his posterity.” See
Gen. 26,4. (Rosenm.) Πίστει, “in faith and sure
confidence,” namely, that his blessing would be
effectual. And though it turned out different from
his expectation, yet that proves that his blessing was
delivered in faith. See Whitby and Mackn., or
Slade.

Q1 πίστει Ἰακὼβ---αὐτοῦ,

“9 In faith that his blessing would be effectual ;” doubtless from
the inspiration with which he was favoured. Kat προσεκύνησεν
ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδον αὐτοῦ. The Hebrew word corresponding
εἴο ῥάβδος may, according to its pointing, either signify a staff, or ἃ
bed’s head. ‘The former interpretation may be justified (see Doddr.
and Mackn.) ; but the best eritics prefer the latter. The bed, I
should conceive, was like what we call a Grecian sopha; and the
mon (literally, the leaning-place) was doubtless the wreath, or head
of the sopha, to which, therefore, Jacob, in aiming at a kneeling
or prostrate posture, would be turned, and lean. From a compa-
rison, however, with the passage of Genes. it appears that this
circumstance took place alittle before, namely, when he had received
the promise that he should be buried in the land of Canaan; and
this, therefore, the Commentators take to have been an act of wor-
ship to God in token of thankfulness for such a privilege as being
buried in the land of Canaan. ‘To remove the apparent discrepancy,
Mr. Slade conjectures that the Apostle intended the clauses of this
verse to be independent of each other (‘‘ By faith he blessed—and,
on another occasion, worshipped,” &c.), thus disregarding the
order of time. This 1 think far more probable than the method
proposed by Ernesti, which is too bold, and it is, 1 have no doubt,
the very truth. Such an anachronism is indeed so trifling as to
present no real difficulty. For I cannot agree with Mackn. and
others, that when the oath was made to him, Israel was not sick
in bed; and that his falling sick took place some time after. Now
μετὰ ταῦτα Often (as in the Gospels) denotes a short space of time.
And the expressions, the time drew nigh, and, thou shalt bury me,
plainly indicate sickness, though incipient, yet probably mortal. So
in the next verse we have: reXevréy—évereidaro. Besides, the
mbn and ἐνοχλεῖται ἀῤῥωστίᾳ of Gen. 48, 2., may very well be un-
derstood of severe sickness. This being the case, I cannot but re-
gard the προσκύνησις of Israel on having received his son’s promise
concerning his burial, as an act of devout thankfulness to God for
his protection throughout life ; conceiving himself now to have, in
a manner, done with this world. And this (1 imagine) caused the
Apostle to unite it so closely with the solemn blessing of his sens,

HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ: 535

which took place, doubtless, a very short time after; for the sick-
ness of such very aged persons never lasts long ; since, as Sopho-
cles beautifully observes, (4, Tyr. 961. σμικρὰ παλαιὰ σώματ᾽
εὐνάξει poi.

Thus all difficulty will vanish, and every thing be natural and con-
sistent.

22. πίστει Ἰωσὴφ ---ἐνετείλατο, when dying (as be-
fore ἀποθνήσκων), being shortly to die. ‘The ἐμνημό-.
νευσε evidently designates a prophetical annuncia-
tion; but whether by inspiration at the time, or
before, is not clear; yet, from a comparison with
the case of Jacob, Gen. 47., the latter (which is
supported by Capellus and Carpz.) seems the more
probable. At all events, he well knew, and declared
to his sons, that another country was promised to
them, to possess which they would leave Egypt.
The direction concerning his bones indicates the
same firm faith in the promises of God as that of
Jacob.

23. πίστει Μωὺῦσῆς, &c. i. 6. faith and reliance on
the assistance and blessing of God to their endea-
vours to save the child. Πατέρων, i. 6. parents, the
father and mother. A rare use, and of which the phi-
lologists adduce no apposite example. Διότι εἶδον
ἀστεῖον τὸ παιδίον. Handsome we know Moses was,
which might of itself raise the commiseration of the
parents. But probably there was also something
august in the countenance of the child, which
seemed to announce that he was born for great
purposes.

23. καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήθησαν τὸ διάταγμια τοῦ βασιλέως. The
sense is: ‘* And (therefore) they did not heed the
king’s edict for the exposure and destruction of the
children.”

24—26. πίστει Μωὐσῆς---Φαραώ. Μέγας γενόμενος,
‘“*when he had attained manhood (or rather matu-
rity ; being forty years old. So Herod. 4, 9, 15.
ἐπεῖ γένωνται τρόφεις. See Schmid and Rosenm.),
disdained to be called the adopted son of,” &c. The
words following, μᾶλλον--- ἀπόλαυσιν, place in a strong
point of view the merit of the sacrifice: for by re-

536 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

nouncing the adoption, he ceased to be an Egyptian,
and to have the privileges thereof; and became an
Israelite, and was exposed to a participation in the
oppressions of his countrymen. The ἢ πρόσκαιρον
ἔχειν ἁμαοτιάς ἀπόλαυσιν, refers to the luxurious and
sinful pleasures of a court at that time the most cor-
rupt in the world. In πρόσκαιρον is contained an
indirect contrast between the ever-during promises
of God, and the fleeting pleasures of sin. This is
further illustrated in the next clause μείϑονα----τοῦ
Χριστοῦ, where, by a strong figure, the insults and
oppressions of the Egyptians are designated by the
ὀνειδισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which most Commentators
are agreed signifies, ‘‘ such contumely as Christ suf-
fered.” Some, however, as Doddr., think it refers
to the relation in which Christ stood to Israel, as his
peculiar people (see Bp. Bull); and that he looked
forward to the reward, in the promise of God re-
specting a future Saviour. And surely (to use the
words of Doddr.) that reward could not be temporal
grandeur, which he might have had, with much
greater security and advantage, in Egypt; nor the
possession of Canaan, which he never saw. It must
therefore be the eternal inheritance, which was dis-
covered to him by the principle here so largely de-
scribed and recommended.

Q7. πίστει κατέλιπεν---ἐκαρτέρησε, ‘* By faith he
organized a systematical migration from Egypt, of
which he was the leader and head.” ‘The μὴ φοβη-
θεῖς τὸν θυμὸν τοῦ βασιλέως, is by the best Commentators
supposed to have reference to the angry words of
the King at his last interview, “See my face no
more,” ὅς. (Rosenm.) Tov yap ἀόρατον ws ὡρῶν
ἐκαρτέρησε. At ἐκαρτ. must be understood αὐτὸν, 1. 6.
τὸν βασιλέα. The sense is: “he courageously en-
countered the hazards of disobedience to the earthly
and visible King, as keeping in view his para-
mount duty to that Monarch who is invisible, the
Lord of heaven and earth.” In this absolute sense
καρτερεῖν frequently occurs in Euripides. It is re-

HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 537

marked by Theophyl.: ‘Qoavel yap ὁρῶν τὸν Θεὸν
συνόντα αὐτῷ, οὕτως ἐκαρτέρει πάντα. And he aptly
cites Ps. 15.

28. πίστει πεποίηκε---αὐτῶν, “In faith (viz. in the
divine protection) he kept the Passover, and ob-
served the sprinkling of the blood.” ΙΠοιεῖν, like the
Hebr. Mwy, signifies to celebrate, i. 6. to slay and
eat. See Matt. 26,18. And in this sacrificial sense
the Latins used facere, and the Greeks ἐρδεῖν and
ῥέξειν. (Ern.) Πεποίηκε τὴν πρόσχυσιν, ‘he sprinkled,”
&c. Now the Passover he, as he was commanded,
celebrated on the night of their departure from
Egypt. At ὁ ὀλοθρεύων, must be understood ἄγγελος
(as 1 Cor. 10, 10. ὁλοθρευτὴς), the angel of death who
brought the pestilence. I would observe that ὄλλυμι
(from whence ὄλεθρος) seems to signify totally de-
stroy, hurl to perdition; and ὅλως comes from the
Hebr. 75. Τὰ πρωτότοκα scil. yevvypara: for the
pestilence destroyed the first-born of animals as well
asmen. Θίγῃ is put, by euphemism, for destroy.
And indeed the touch of the plague is destruction.

Now the merit of faith under such peculiar cir-
cumstances was great indeed.

29. πίστει διέβησαν---κατεπόθησαν. The ἐρθρ. bar.
is commonly called the Red Sea. But this is founded
in a vulgar error, and the appellation rather arose from
its proper name Mare Erythreum, which, the Com-
mentators say, was derived from King Erythras,
undoubtedly the same with Esau, or Edom, who was
ared man. So Grot. and others. It is called by
Moses at Exod. 15, 22. Mp 05°, the weedy sea. And
such the accounts of modern tourists, as Niehbuhr
and others (see Harmer) testify it to be. But
whether these weeds give a colour to it, so as to
originate the name Red Sea, is, I think, very doubt-
ful.

“Hs (scil. διαβάσεως, for διέβησαν) πεῖραν λαβόντες,
making atrial, trying. So the best interpreters. See
Raphel, Kypke, and others. ΚΚατεπύθησαν, “ were
swallowed up by the sea,” literally, were swallowed

538 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

down (κατὰ). The more correct expression would
have been κατεποντίσθησαν, which is used by Philo on
this subject.

30. πίστει----ἡμέρας. Some recent Commentators
(see Dind.) run into strange speculations on this
event, from which they strive to remove all idea of
miraculous power. Into these I shall not enter.
Ernesti, indeed, defends the miracle; but πίστει
cannot (as he would propose) be construed with
κυκλωθ., without great violence; neither is this ne-
cessary. The plain sense is: ‘It was by or through
faith that the walls of Jericho fell, after having been
besieged seven days;” the period foreshown by God,
at which the city walls should fall. Now this was
permitted to happen ἐπὶ πίστει, “on account of
the faith of Joshua and his army in the assurances of
God.” And therefore to that faith the fall of the
city may (popularly) be ascribed.

31. πίστει Ῥαὰβ---εἰρήνης. The sense of πορνὴ here
depends upon that of the Hebr. 72 at Josh. 2, 1.,
which many eminent philologists derive from }%,
to feed, maintain ; thus taking it to denote a hostess,
or innkeeper. And this they support from the
Chaldee interpreter, and Chrys. And so (I would
add) Joseph. p. 179. Ed. Huds. See Carpz. Schleus.
and Dind., which last Commentator, however, urges
some strong reasons why this sense of hostess cannot
be acceded to. If so we may suppose, with many
Commentators, that she is called a harlot, as having
been onceso. See Matt. 21,31. There is no doubt,
however, but that the words hostess and harlot (or
procuress) were convertible terms; since among
those corrupt people, innkeepers were usually such.
See Grot.; hence Braun thinks she might be both.
I should rather conjecture that πορνὴ was the appel-
lation given, by that gross and vicious people the
Canaanites, to all hostesses, whether they were, or
were not πορναὶ, properly so called; and that Rahab
was not, and probably had never been, such. Now
her faith, which made her a fit object of mercy, was

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 539

in the existence of the one true God and of his
power (as evinced on many former occasions) to de-
fend the Israelites, his people, and destroy their
enemies.

91. δεξαμένη τοὺς κατασκόπους μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. The
best Commentators explain μετ᾽ εἰρήνης by per’
ἐπιμελείας, multd cum solicitudine et humanitate,
amanter, benigné, which interpretation may be ad-
mitted; but there is perhaps an allusion to some for-
muia of address on receiving any one toa house;
and as the words at parting were, ‘Go in peace,” so
there might be, ‘‘ Come in peace,” like ond 8.3, which
salutation (as ὈΞῪ implied security, tranquillity,
and happiness of every kind) was an implied assur-
ance of kind treatment.

32. καὶ τί ἔτι λέγω ; ἐπιλείψει γὰρ μὲ διηγούμενον ὁ
χρόνος. ‘These were forms in common use with the
best writers, especially orators, from whom Wets.
adduces several examples. .

33, 34. of διὰ πίστεως --λεόντων. It is observed
by Rosenm., that these attributes of faith do not,
indeed, pertain to the whole of the persons mentioned
at ver. 32., but only some of them; yet almost all
of them subjugated kings and states. And this they
did through faith in the God of Israel.

33. εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην. Menoch. and, of the re-
cent Commentators, Dind. and Rosenm., think that
δικαιοσ. may be understood specialiter, of just judg-
ment in deciding causes, as Samuel and others.
Theophyl. explains it τὸ ἑκαστῷῴ ἀπονεμιεῖν τὸ κατ᾽
ἀξίαν, whether friends or foes. But it seems better
to adhere to the general sense, as being more appro-
priate and natural. So Ernesti explains, sancté, pie,
religiosé facere, ad legem divinam vivere. There
may be, too, an allusion to habitual virtue; as in
the of ἐργαϑόμιενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν in Matt. 7. 33., &c.
Now to do this they would be especially animated
by faith in God.

33. ἐπέτυχον ἐπαγγελιῶν, “by this faith they obtained
the promised blessings.” The histories of the Old
Testament are the best commentary on this clause. In

540 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

the ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων there is reference to the
cases of Daniel, Samson, and David, on which see
the Old Testament. Now such things could only
have been done by the help of God, which would be
vouchsafed to faith alone. "Εσβεσαν δύναμιν πυρὸς.
This alludes to the case of Schadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego, Dan. 3, 27 ἃ 29. Of these it is figura-
tively said that they quenched the power of the fire,
namely, because their firm faith in the protection of
the God of Israel caused that it should have no
power over them, but, as far as respected them, be
quenched. ἔΕφυγον στόματα μαχαίρας. ‘This is an
evident Hebraism (though not merely such ; as ap-
pears from Soph. Aj. 651.) for “ escaped the edge of
the sword.” So the Sept. Φεύγειν μάχαιραν, Sirach
28, 18.and 1 Macc. 5, 28. See Carpz. and Heinr.
᾿Απὸ ἀσθενείας, “from being weak.” An idiom found
in the Classical writers. So Thucyd. 7, 42. τῷ δὲ
στρατεύματι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ws ἐκ κακῶν, ῥώμη TIS ἐγε-
yevyro. Rosenm. refers to the case of Samson,
Judg. 16, 19. compared with ver. 29. Παρεμβολὰς
ἔκλιναν ἀλλοτρίων. ‘The παρεμβ. may (as in the Clas-
sical writers) be put for the armies which filled the
camp. See Schleus. Lex. Kaivew is here, as often
in the best writers, used in a hiphil sense for ἐγκλίνειν.
It signifies to put to the rout, like the Latin inclinare
castra. See Dind. ᾿Αλλοτρίων, i. 6. the Gentiles
and idolaters.

35, 36. The Apostle now passes (by a natural
association of ideas, ) from the case of those who were
delivered from danger through faith, to that of those
who endured evils of every kind, under its support.
It is observed by Dind. : “Duo hec exempla matrum,
que demortuos filios in vitam revocatos acceperunt,
scriptori suggerunt tristiora fata illius mulieris quee
filios suos in crudelissima persecutione sub Antiocho
Epiphane necatos non recuperaret ἐξ ἀναστάσεως.
Nam antea nihil de persecutione in Judzos ob reli-
gionem suam grassante consignatam legimus.”

On the ἔλαβον, &c. see 1 Kings, 17, 30. and 2 Kings
4, 21. The ἐξ ἀναστάσεως is for ἀναστησάντας.

HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 541

35. ἐτυμπανίσθησαν. This term, which seldom
occurs in the Classical writers, is here used for
ἀποτ., Which is found in many good _ writers.
What sort of a punishment this was, 15 not
certain: but that it is here meant wnto death,
seems probable; and I would render ἐτυμπ.,
beaten to death. So Gloss. Alberti, érupmavic-
θησαν: ἀνηρέθησαν. And so Cicumen. Much has
been said by a Gataker ap. Suic. Thes. in voc.,
partly to the purpose, and partly not. The signifi-
cations assigned by the Greek Commentators are
chiefly three. Photius has the foliowing exposition :
τυμπανίξβεται" ξύλῳ πλήσσεται, ἐκδέρεται καὶ κρέμαται.
Others explain: σφαιρίϑεται, or ἀπετμήθησαν, or avy-
ρέθησαν. Now, to reconcile these, the modern Com-
mentators are much perplexed. Some of them take
the term to denote equulet supplictum. ‘The truth
seems to be, that τύμπανον, which comes from τύπτω,
signified, properly, a beating-stick (like the French
bdton) ; but was often used to denote a beating, or
whipping post. Hence τυμπανίϑεσθαι denoted the
punishment of the whipping post, i. 6. ξύλος πλήσσεσ-
θαι: and as that was often exceedingly severe, it is
no wonder that the term should be sometimes ex-
plained by the Greek Lexicographers σφαιρίξω, ἐκδέ-
pw, which signify, not literally, to flay, or strip off
the skin, but, metaphorically, to beat severely, some-
times even to death. So our flog, which is cognate
with flay. This signification indeed, of dégw (whence
δορὺ), is almost the only one occurring in the New
Testament. See Schleus. Lex. How τύπτειν came
to have the sense of κρεμάω, seems to have been thus.
The τύμπανον was probably made in this form, T ; so
that the criminal had his arms fastened to the two
horns of the post, with his head above the top of it,
and his feet bound to the lower part, without, how-
ever, reaching the ground; so that he might trul
be said κρεμᾶσθαι. It is obvious how effectually this
posture would promote the purposes of punishment,
by rendering it impossible for the poor wretch to

542 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

shrink from the blows. Finally, how τυμπανίϑω
came to mean ἀποκεφαλίϑω, and ἀναιρέω, is (I think)
obvious: for most words denoting particular punish-
ments, are sometimes used, by metonymy, in a general
way, to signify all punishments producing the same
effect, whether to death, or not. Several instances
may be seen in the Notes of Gataker and Suicer. It
must also be observed, that, as the beating was
sometimes administered, not with sticks, or whips,
but with leather thongs, like the Russian Knout,
having pieces of lead sewed in them at the end, so
τυμπανίϑω came at length to be expounded σφαιρίϑω.
Here there is, doubtless, an allusion to the punish-
ment of Eleazer, recorded at 2 Macc., 6, 30., and
7, 3.5 seqq.

35. οὐ προσδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν, “ not accept-
ing the liberation offered at the price of apostasy.”
This is a rare sense of ἀπολύτρωσις, which Schleus.
illustrates from Luke 21, 28., ἐγγίϑει ἡ ἀπολύτρωσις
ὑμῶν. The κρείττων ἀναστάσις Rosenm. explains, the
resurrection to another and a better life.* And
from 2 Macc., c. 8., it is clear that the doctrine was
then believed; though without the certainty of the
Gospel revelation. See Doddr.

80. ἕτεροι δὲ---φυλακῆς. Here, πεῖραν λαμβάνειν, as
supra, ver. 29., is used for πειρᾶσθαι (See Gatak.
Adv. ap. Pole). But here the sense is, experienced,
felt the force of. The ἐμπαιγμών is thought to allude
to 2 Macc., 7.1. For the historical illustration of
each particular, the ordinary Commentators, Pole,
&c., may be consulted.

* Which is confirmed by Theophyl., who explains Φωὴν αἰώνιον,
i. e.a heavenly one, better than that of the wicked, who will only
rise from their graves to suffer punishment here below ; while the
righteous will be caught up, to meet the Lord in the air, &c. Hal-
let thinks the opposition lies between the resurrection to eternal
life, which these martyrs expected, and the resurrection of the dead
children to life in the world just before. And this is countenanced
by some antients: but it seems precarious ; as does also the opinion
of Crell., Hamm., and Doddr., that the κρείττων is meant as opposed
to a present remission of their torments.

HEBREWS, CHAP. XI. 543

37, 38. Here are enumerated the severer punishments, even unto
death, and that the most violent ᾿Ελεθάσθησαν requires no explana-
tion. With respect to the ἐπρίσθησαν, there is no doubt but that this
punishment was sometimes employed by the refined cruelty of those
barbarous times. The Commentators refer to the example of Isaiah,
who was, we are told, sawn in two by a wooden saw. They also cite
2 Sam., 12,3., 1 Paral., 20, 3., Amos 1, 3. To which I add Herod.
2, 139., συμβουλεύειν τοὺς ipéas—pésous διατάμεσιν. And this
punishment, I remember, is recorded in Diod. Sic. It has, how-
ever, Sometimes occurred to me that the word may have been used
populariter to denote, as we say, cut and hack any one to pieces. And
so Appian, speaking of the murder of Cicero, T.2, 556, 29., says
that the Centurion τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπισπάσας, ἀπέτεμνεν, és τρὶς ἐπι-
πλήσσων, καὶ ἐκδιαπρίξων (sawing it off) ὑπὸ ἀπειρίας.

It is, however, a question of more difficult determination what is
to be said of the ἐπειράσθησαν, which almost all Critics regard as
corrupt, and of which there have been nearly a dozen different con-
jectures proposed. Some Critics employ the method of curing the
limb by amputation. But this is a sort of surgery which is better
not resorted to, except in extreme cases; and this is not one. In a
Classical author, indeed, 1 should be inclined to suspect the word
might be a Var. Lect. of the preceding ; but in the phraseology of
the Apostle the case is different ; and the authorities for the omission
of the word are too few, and easily accounted for (namely, from the
difficulty of the word) to merit any attention. I agree, with Mill,
Hallet, Pfaff, Schmid, Carpz., &c., that it must be retained, yet not
interpreted (as it is by some), of solicitation to apostasy; since that
was before mentioned; nor be explained, ‘ tried with afflictions,”
as it is by Schleus.; though he compares Ps. 35, 16., ἐπείρασαν με;
ἐξεμυκτήρισαν με. And he might have added Eurip. Med. 57., τοὺς
ἐν μεγάλαις δυστυχίαις ἐξεταξομένους. But thesense is too mild a
one. ‘The preference seems to be due to the interpretation of Sykes,
Semler, Ernesti, and others, who take this as a genus for species, and
understand it of torturing unto death,. So ἐτάθεσθαι is explained by
Hesych. βασανίξεσθαι. And ἐξετάθεσθαι is frequently used in that
sense in the Pandects. See St. Thes. So also Diod. Sic. x. 2, 525.,
has ἐξέτασαι in the sense of tormenting. The werd may therefore
be rendered, ‘‘ tormentis (questioni admoti) tentati sunt,”

87. ἐν divw μαχαίρας ἀπέθανον. This seems to be a
blending of two phrases ; for I have no where else
met with the expression. It may be observed, that
the Apostle now, from the trials of faith in those
who had to encounter death, passes to the less vio-
lent, but scarcely less severe ones of the unhappy
persons who, having escaped their tyrants and perse-
cutors, were, as wretched outcasts, exposed to every
variety of misery. Περιῆλθον is well rendered, by
Dind., oberrabant. The περὶ may allude to the cir-

544 HEBREWS, CHAP. XI.

cuitous tracks and by-paths they had to pursue, to
avoid their enemies. The μηλωταῖς and αἱγείοις δέσ-
pact, must not be taken literally, to denote sheep-
skins ; but, with the best Commentators, of rude
garments made thereof, with the wool left on. See
1 Kings, 19, 13 ἃ Τὸ 2 Kings, 2, 8., 13, 14. And
consult the learned note of Carpz., who shows, from
Philo, that such dresses were used by the poorest
class, and those exposed to the weather, especially
in travelling. Indeed, to the present day, they are in
use among the boors of Poland, Russia, and ‘Tartary.

37. ὑστερούμενοι, scil. ὑπαρχόντων, ‘destitute of
necessaries.” Θλιβόμενοι, ‘ pinched with want.”
Kaxouyotnevos, ‘ afflicted with evils of every kind.”
The next words, ὧν οὐκ ἦν ἀξίος ὃ κόσμος, are a paren-
thetical exhortation. Similar ones in sentiment are
adduced from a Rabbinical writer by Wets. It is
observed, by Grot., that the Apostle means by this to
say, that those of whom the world was not worthy,
were by that world thought unworthy, even of house
room! At καὶ σπηλαίοις καὶ ταῖς ὀπαῖς τῆς γῆς
cannot very well be repeated πλανώμενοι; but some
verb supplied from the context, which was omitted
by the emotion of the Apostle. Mackn. paraphrases :
“They wandered by day in deserts and mountains,
and by night lodged in caves and holes of the earth.”
Yet I suspect they often used these as day habita-
tions. ‘The sense may therefore be this: “they
wandered about in the desert, residing first in one
cave, and then in another.” The σπηλαίοις denotes
those large caves with which Palestine abounds, and
which are sufficiently capacious for the residence
(dreary as it must be) of a considerable number of
persons. This is evident from the interesting
account of what befel Josephus after the taking of
Jotapata. The ὀπαῖς denotes the smaller caves,
serving for a miserable lodging. Among the passages
cited by Carpz., there is Philo 1009., where it is said
that men, women, and children were driven out, and
compelled to shelter themselves in a cave. And

HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 545

just after we have: ἐξεχέοντο εἰς ἐρημίαν καὶ αἰγιαλοὺς,
καὶ μνήματα.

869, 40. μαρτυρηβέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως. See the
note, supra, ver. ὦ, Οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.
On the sense οἵ érayy. the modern Commentators
variously speculate. It cannot mean earthly pro-
mises; for the fruition of these some did attain.
Rosenm., Morus, and Dind., interpret it of stable
felicity. The antients, and many moderns, take it
κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, to denote that of the Messiah, and the
blessings to be expected through him. So Chrys.,
Carpz., and Storr. But the former interpretation
seems the more agreeable to the context.

The next words assign the reason for their not
having been permitted to attainthem. But there is
something about the sentence peculiarly perplexed.
The difficulty is not acknowledged by any but Er-
nesti and Dind., who consider it at large, and attempt
to remove it. ‘The sense probably depends upon the
interpretation of the τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν in the preceding
verse, which, if it be taken of the promise of the
Messiah, will require the present words to be ex-
plained (with Rosenm,) thus: “ Bona promissa
(tempore Messize demum percipienda) non consecuti
sunt, Deo melius nobis prospiciente, ita ut illi mi-
nimeé possent sine nobis (sine beneficio doctring
Christiane in nos collato) felicitate consummata
ornari.” If the interpretation of Morus, &c., be
adopted. the sense will be (as expressed by Rosenm.)
thus: ‘*Quoniam Deus nobis melius prospicere vo-
luit, ut scilicet illi ad perfectam felicitatem perveni-
rent sine nobis.’”’ Perhaps the obscurity has arisen
from extreme brevity, and the words may be thus
paraphrased: “ They all received not the promise
(held out to virtue, neither perfectly in the temporal,
nor at all in the spiritual one of the Messiah). No,
God was pleased, in the exercise of his providence
for us, to destine that they should not attain the
perfect fruition of the Divine promises, till the time
when they should enjoy them in common with us.

VOL. Vill. 2N

546 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII.

CHAP. XII.

Verse I, 2. τοιγαροῦν---πάντα. Having proved, by
numerous examples, the efficacy of faith, the Apostle
now proceeds, in the way of conclusion, to exhort
them to steadfastness in the Christian faith. Now
he founds his first argument on the great number of
witnesses to their conduct. ι

The τοιγαροῦν is conclusive: ““ Wherefore being
surrounded with such a cloud of witnesses.” By the
witnesses some: moderns understand the proofs and
evidences how highly God esteems faith, and how
much he will reward it. But this seems harsh and
precarious. It is far more natural, with all the
antients, and the most judicious moderns, to inter-
pret the pagr. of the worthies of the Old Testament,
some of whom have been just instanced, who by their
words and actions testified how much the objects of
their faith were valued above all worldly considera-
tions; including, also, the Confessors and: Martyrs
of the New ‘Testament, as the Proto-martyr Stephen,
&c. From what follows, it is plain that there is an
agonistical allusion : and the νέφος well answers to
the immense crowd of spectators, in the amphithea-
tre, seated one above another to an immense height.
Thus νέφος and nimbus were used of a large body of
men both by the Poets and prose writers. As to the
interpretation of Rosenm., it is sufficiently refuted
by the περικείμιενον, on which it is strange the Philo-
logical Commentators, who adduce such numerous
Classical citations on the νέφος, should not have
brought farward the Ovidian line, ““Consedere Duces,
et vulgi stante corond.” ‘The passage is elegantly
paraphrased by Wets. thus: ‘ Fingite animo vestro
omnes heroas, quorum constantiam et fidem modo
laudavi, vos circumstare, et spectatores sedere vestri
cursus, vestree vel constantiz vel defectionis.

"Oyxov, weight, load. 1 would compare Pind.
Olymp.9, 55., where the Scholiast explains : ἀπόῤῥι-

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 547

Wor, ἤγον ws βάρος ἀπόθου. Here there is a continua-
tion of the agonistical metaphor. ‘The ὄγκος denotes
the remains of unsubdued vices, and those various
sins, or vanities, including an excessive attachment
to the world, &c., which drag down the soul to earth,
and grievously impede us in running our spiritual race,
So Theodoret : εἰς τούτους τοιγαροῦν ἀφορώντες, κοῦφοι
περὶ τὸν δρόμον γενώμεθα, καὶ τὸν τῶν περιττῶν φροντίδων
ἀποῤῥίψωμιν ὄγκον.

The words following are exegetical of the preced-
ing: and the καὶ may be rendered even, or especially.
The εὐπερίστατον is variously explained. By Theo-
phyl.: τὴν εὐκόλως περιϊσταμιένην ἡμᾶς. By Theodoret :
εὐκόλως συνισταμένην TE καὶ γινομένην" καὶ γὰρ ὀφθαλμὸς
δελεάξεται, ἀκοὴ καταθέλγεται, ἀφὴ γαργαλίϑεται, καὶ
γλώσσα ῥᾷστα διολισθαίνει, καὶ 6 λογισμὸς περὶ τὸ χεῖρον
ὀξύῤῥοπος. It is explained by the best moderns
cingens, circumveniens, decipiens. And so Rosenm.
and Schleus. But this is paying no attention to the
εὐ. 1 cannot but suspect that there is in it a military
metaphor. And I have elsewhere observed agonis-
tical and military ones intermixed. The εὖ must then
be referred to the arch fiend, the Devil: and the
term may be rendered, skilful to draw up forces
around us, to surround and destroy us. What sin is
here meant we are left to conjecture. Most Com-

mentators suppose, apostacy. But, considering what:

has occurred in the preceding, there seems to be also
included practical apostacy, i. 6. the living without
any regard to our solemn obligations, as Christians.
By the ὑπομονῆς is denoted a patient endurance of
the difficulties which we may, nay, must, encounter
in our Christian course. It is plain that to run with
patience the race that is set before us, is to run the
Christian course so as to perform all the duties en-
joined by our spiritual ἀγωνοθέτης. Among the pas

sages here cited by the Philological Commentators:

the most apposite 1s Philo 203. τὸν προτεθέντα ἀγῶνα
τῶν Θείων καὶ ᾿Ολυμπίων ἀρετῶν.
2. ἀφορῶντες εἰς τὸν---Ἰησοῦν. Here again there
2N2

548 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ].

appears to be a mixture of military and agonistical
metaphors. Jesus is represented as our ἀγωνοθέτης,
and also a leader, whose example his soldiers are
bound to follow. The τελειώτην seems to refer
to the former. By the τῆς πίστεως is not meant
our religion, but that faith in God, of which the
Apostle has just before adduced so many bright ex-
amples in the Patriarchs and Prophets, and to the
great archetype of those, and many other virtues, he
here directs our view.

He then proceeds to set forth the patient endur-
ance of Jesus, as evinced in accomplishing the work
of our salvation. ‘The ἀντὶ is variously interpreted :
but it seems rendered of ‘Theophy]. and Theodoret,
of the antients, and many eminent moderns, because
of; as Eph. 5, 31. The χαρὰ προκειμένη, Rosenm.
observes, is used as ἔλπις προκ. at 6, 18. And he
renders the χαρᾶς gaudium instans, summam potes-
tatem, qu mortem crucis consecuta est, Phil. 2, 9.
But it may be understood of the joyful event in con-
templation, which animated his endurance, namely,
the accomplishment of the work of human salvation.
So Slade: ‘* As Jesus endured for the joy of finishing
his scheme of salvation, should his disciples endure
for the joy of being partakers of it.” Αἰσχύνης κατα-
ᾧρονήσας, ““ despising the ignominy.” A spirited and
beautiful expression, to which I know no one com-
parable except that of Thucyd. 2, 62. ἰέναι δὲ τοῖς
ἐχθροῖς ὁμόσε, p7 φρονήματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταφρονή-
ματι. So Herodian, L. 8. κρυοὺς καὶ θάλπους καταῷρο-
yoy. And Dio, Ο. 7. 127 ο. (cited by Wets.) μὴ
σπουδάσαι γνωσθῆναι δόξης καταφρονουμένης. The xa-
ταῷρ., Rosenm. observes, is to be taken comparate.
But this seems an unwarrantable limitation.

The words ἐν δεξιᾷ τε τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκάθισεν,
seem nof meant (as many take them) to suggest the
reason for the patient endurance of Jesus; but to
hint to us that we may expect our reward, as Christ
received his (so Phil. 2, 9. Διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύ-
woe), namely, that of being with Christ before the
presence of God for ever, though not as he is and

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 549

Will be, ἰσύνθρονος and σότιμος with God, and united
with him in equality of dignity and power.

8. ἀναλογίσασθε γὰρ---ἀντιλογίαν. ‘The connection
here has not been well traced by the moderns ;
though it is ably pointed out by heophyl. In the
ἀναλογίσασθε there is thought to be a mathematical
metaphor. And so Schmid and Raphel. Most
Critics are agreed that it suggests the comparison ;
q. d. **compare him who suffered such things
(though the son of God) with yourselves. The ἀν-
τιλογίαν is, a8 Theophyl. says, emphatical. Its sense
is variously explained. In the E. V. it is rendered
contradiction. But this is too limited. It is, I think,
rightly taken by Chrys., Carpz., Dind., and Rosenm.,
to denote all Christ's sufferings of every kind.
Though Ern. renders it by the general term contu-
melia; and refers to, and explains Luke 2, 34. Kap-
νειν signifies to fag, flag, &c. and corresponds to our
tire. ᾿Εκλύομαι is used as at Gal. 6, 9. where see the
note. Loesner well explains this and other cognate
terms, which he considers as agonistical. 1 would
compare Diod. Sic. 5, 9, 220. ἤδη κάμνοντες ταῖς
ψυχαῖς.

4. οὔπω μέχρις ----ἀνταγωνιϑόμιενοι. There is some
obscurity in these words. The difficulty turns on
the ἁμαρτία. Butit may be removed by reverting to
the use of that term at ver. 1.: and the best modern
Commentators are agreed that it has here nearly the
same sense, and denotes the sin of apostacy, either
properly so called, or what may be called practical
apostacy, including all those lusts which war against
the soul, and are so destructive of our well-being
here, as well as our happiness hereafter. See Ern.
and Dind., and the excellent illustrations of Chrys.
and Theophyl. At the same time, there seems to
be an allusion to the author and suggester of all,
even the Devil, to which, indeed, some wholly con-
fine it. :

The words μέχρις αἵματος (for αἱματεκχυίας, of
which Wets. adduces two examples,) show what kind

550 HEBREWS, GHAP. XII.

of apostacy must principally be intended. “By resist-
ance to apostacy even unto blood,” is meant, so to over-
come the temptations of the flesh as to be ready to
shed one’s blood in the cause of the Gospel. Now
this the Prophets and others, especially Jesus Christ,
had already done. Those whom he 15 addressing,
the Apostle means to say, were called to compara-
tively light endurances ; and therefore had no excuse
for fainting under them.

5,6. καὶ ἐκλέλησθε---ἐλεγχόμιενος, ‘* And yet ye
have (it seems) forgotten the admonition which ad-
dresses you as sons.” It is observed by Rosenm.,
that παράκλησις has here a combined sense of conso-
lation and exhortation. The passage here adduced
is from Prov. 8,11. For μὴ ὀλιγώρει Aquila has μὴ
ἀποδοκίμασον : and Symm. μὴ ἀποθῆς. The literal
sense is: “do not set lightly by.” So Hesych.: ὀλιγω-
pel ὀλίγην ἔχει φροντίδα: "Eneyxopnevos, ““ rebuked for
sin.” “Ov γὰο---παραδέχεται. For παιδεύει some MSS.
read ἐλέγχει. On the μαστιγοῖ it is observed b
Rosenm., that the Sept. for 83 (as a father) read
as. And this reading seems to be more agreeable
to the context. The metaphorical use of μαστιγοῦν
and similar words is frequent in the Classical writers.
The Commentators compare from the Sept. Tob. 13,
2. Sapient. 12, 22. 16,16. Παραδέχεται, receives
with approbation, loves; as Luke 16, 2. See Fisch.
Prolus. 1, 8.

7, 8. εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομιένετε--- Θεὸς, “ If (then) ye
bear (this) chastening of affliction,” ἄς. Ὑσομένειν,
Rosenm. observes, is here used in the sense of per-
peti; as James 1,12. Προσφέρεται, acts, deals. A
signification common in the best writers. Προσφέρεσ-
θαι literally signifies to conduct oneself towards. ‘The
sense is: ‘‘ God hath a paternal care for you.” The
parenthetical clause ris γὰρ---πατὴρ; is exegetical.
“Ὁ For what son does not receive correction of his
faults at the hands of a father?” Eide yapis-—viol.
The ἐστε seems to be for y7e. The sense is: ‘* If ye
were without chastisement, then would ye be bastards,

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. οὶ

and not sons. ‘That would argue a less care over
you by God. for of bastards men usually take less
care than of sons.” By πάντες must be meant all
God’s true sons and faithful servants; with especial
allusion to the Patriarchs and Prophets above men-
tioned.

9. εἶτα---ϑήσομεν; The εἶτα has an argumentative
force ; and when used (as here) in an interrogative
sentence, this particle has great elegance. It is
rendered by Rosenm. afqui, jam vero, τοίνυν, ἐπεὶ οὖν.
Here again (as Theophyl. well observes) the Apostle
shows by an argumentum ad hominem, that they
ought to bear, &c. And the πατέρας τῆς σαρκὸς.
Theophyl. well explains of σαρκικοὶ rar. ‘* These
(says Rosenm.), being themselves mortal, generated
us to mortality.” [Παιδευτὰς, correctors. Kal éverpe-
πόμιεθα, “we reverently submitted to their correc-
tion,” οὐκ ἐτολμώμεν ἀποπηδῆσαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνετρεπόμεθα καὶ
ὑπεμένομεν, ὅσα av ἐπέφερον, paraphrases Theophyl.
In εἴχομεν and ἐνετρεπόμεθα there is a simple He-
braic construction.

9, ὑποταγησόμεθα, ‘shall we not obediently sufter
what he inflicts.” ‘This is (as Theophyl. observes) a
stronger term than ὑπομένομεν. With respect to the
τῷ πατρὶ τῶν πνευμάτων, it is variously explained even
by the antients. Some understand it of the spiritual
gifts; others of angels; others again, of souls. The
last mentioned interpretation seems the truest ; and
is supported by Grot.and many eminent moderns.
It is required, too, by the antithesis. Theophyl.,
who adopts it, remarks: Πρὸς γὰρ ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῶν
σαρκικῶν πατέρων, εἶπε τὸ πνευματικόν. Rosenm. indeed
takes it to denote spiritual father: but he explains
it: perfectissimus, qui nunquam pro lubitu, sine.
idoneis rationibus castigat, vel errores in castigando
admittit, ut patres humani solent. God is indeed
supposed to be such by the context; yet that cannot
be elicited from the expression.

9. ϑήσομιεν is very emphatic, and has an allusion to
the felicity laid up for the just in heaven (and per-

552 HEBREWS, CHAP. XHl.

haps also the perpetuity of it). 1 cannot but think
that Dr. Doddr. in his elegant Epigram (formed
from the Dum vivimus vivamus of the Heathen Poet) :
« Lord in my view let both united be,
I live to pleasure while I live to thee,”
had this passage in mind.

10. οἱ μὲν γὰρ--- αὐτοῦ, ‘* Now they for a few days
(only those of our childhood) chastened us.” The κατὰ
τὸ δοκοῦν, considered with the antithetical ἐπὶ τὸ συμ.-
Φόρον, must not be interpreted of arbitrariness only,
but a neglecting to direct punishment to its only
lawful end, the reformation and the final good of the
oifender; and aiming rather to excite fear, which is
only the means, rather than the end; and seeking an
end of their own, the giving vent to their passion
and ill humour. Εἰς τὸ μεταλαβεῖν τῆς ἁγιότητος αὐὖ-
τοῦ, ‘‘ for partaking of his holiness (δεκτικοὺς εἶναι τῶν
ἀγαθῶν αὐτοῦ, paraphrases Theophyl.); our virtue
being exercised and strengthened by calamity.”
Morus compares the precept to the Israelites: ‘ Be
ye holy; for I, your God, am holy;” and 2 Pet. 1,
4, θείας κοινωνοὶ Φύσεως.

Such appears to be the true sense; and it is sup-
ported by the best antient and modern Interpreters.
See Chrys., Ern., and Dind.

11. πᾶσα d6€—arrd λύπης. It is well remarked by
Theophyl.: πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἐννοίας τὰς ἀφορμὰς
ἔλαβε τῆς παραινέσεως. ‘The δοκεῖ is emphatical: and
at χαρᾶς must be understood πράγμα ; and both are
equivalent to an adjective, distasteful; 4. ἃ. “ it
seems to be distasteful, if we consult our feedings ;
but it zs not.” So in the Proverbs: ‘* The root is
bitter ; but the fruit is sweet.” The words follow-
ing are exegetical, and the sense is: ‘‘ afterwards ‘it
is found to yield the wholesome fruit of virtue to
those who are exercised by it.” Εἰρηνικὸν, wholesome,
like the Hebr. 17%. So Rosen. and the best Critics.
It is explained by Theophyl.: ἀτάραχον, λεῖον, ἡδὺν.
And he observes: Ὁ μὲν yap λυπούμενος ταράττεται"
ἡ δὲ χαίρων λειότητα τινα ἔχει καὶ γαλήνην. It may,

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. δος

however (as Wolf thinks) have reference to that
“peace of God which passeth all understanding.”

Of the parallel passages here adduced by Wets.
from the Classical writers, the most apposite is Dio
Cass. p. 100. ἀγαπῶ ὑμᾶς, ὡς πατὴρ παῖδας----κγνώσεσθε
δὲ, ὅτι ἀληθὴ λέγω, ἕν μήτε πρὸς τὸ αὐτίκα ἡδὺ τὸ συμ.-
φέρόν κρίνητε μᾶλλον, ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἀεὶ ὀφέλιμοον.

12,13. The Apostle employs another image, to
excite them to constancy in bearing calamities, see-
ing that they produce such fruit. ‘There is here ad-
duced a passage from Is. 53, 3. where for ἀνορθώσατε
the Sept. has ἰσχύσατε. The metaphor is, by the
antients, and many moderns, thought to be an ago-
nistical one: but by others (as Carpz.) it is (more
probably, I think,) supposed to be derived from the
effects of extreme sickness (especially paralytick), or
violent fatigue. Thus it corresponds to the figura-
tive language at ver. 3. See Raphel, Carpz., and
Dind., which last Commentator compares Sirach 11,
14. οὐαὶ καρδίαις εἰλαῖς καὶ χερσὶ παρειμέναις. To which
I add Sirach 25, 23. and 2, 18. and Eurip. Alc. 204.
παρειμένη γε, χειρὸς ἄθλιον βάρος" and 411. ide γὰρ----
παρατονοὺς χεῖρας.

On the next words, τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς
ποσὶν ὑμῶν, which are derived from Prov. 11, 26.,
Dind. remarks: “ Ulterius inhzret isti allegoria,
qua actiones comparet cum gressibus pedum, uti
tota vita cum via et cursu confertur.” He also ob-
serves, that the force of the phrase is, ‘‘ walk in» a
straight path; turn neither to the right nor the left ;
weigh well your actions lest you err.’ And he
might have added, that probably the Apostle had
also in view Prov. 4,27. “Turn not to the right
hand, nor to the left: remove thy feet from evil.”
The sense, then, after withdrawing the metaphor, is
this: “ Take the straight road of piety and virtue,
removing all impediments in its course.” See Hardy.
It is not improbable that this is a metaphor derived
from the making of high roads, which among the
antients were always carried in a straight course.

554 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII.

Τροχία signifies properly a via trita; literally on
which men τρέχουσι. Hence our track. And so also
path, from pethian, to tread. Hesych. explains rpo-
χίαι by ai τῶν τροχῶν yapages. These, 1 suspect,
were sometimes formed by arf, and like our iron
railways.

13. ἵνα μὴ τὸ ywAov—paarov. Now when the feet
are lame, from paralysis or otherwise, they ἐκτρέπον-
ται, and produce no motion of the body. The ἱαθῃ
may refer to that moderate exercise by which such
members are benefited. And so the best Critics ex-
plain. The sense, however, is too imperfectly de-
veloped to enable one to be positive. ‘The moral
application 1 is obvious.

14. εἰρήνην διώκετε---τὸν Κύριον, “ Pursue and culti-
vate peace with,” &c. So 5 Cor. 14, 1. διώκετε τὴν
ἀγάπην. Compare also 1 Pet. 3,11. and Rom. 12,
18. Διωκ. is a strong term ; and is found in the best
Greek writers. ‘To the passages cited by the Philo-
logical Commentators I add Thucyd. 2, 63. μὴ φεύγειν
τοὺς πόνους, ἢ μηδὲ τὰς τιμὰς διώκειν, and Eurip. Ion.
443, ἀρετὰς δίωκε. It is here well remarked by Ro-
senm.: ‘* Concordia multum valet ad constantiam in
adversis. Ubi enim, qui in eodem coetu sunt, inci-
piunt discordes esse, ad alium coetum facile transe-
unt.”” He adds, that ἁγιασμὸς here stands for the
whole complexus virtutum.

By see the Lord is meant, obtain an admission to
heaven: and therefore the sense isthe same whether
Kugiov be interpreted of God, or of Christ. See Mr.
Valpy.

15. ᾿Επισκοποῦντες μήτις ὑστερῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χάριτος τοῦ
Θεοῦ.

There is an ellipsis of 7; and ἐπισκ. here signifies to see to,
attend, mind. ‘Yorepeiy signifies literally to be too late for; and
here, to fall short of, miss of. Dindorf renders it recedere, descicere.
But this explanation arose from his confining the sense to apos-
tacy: an undue limitation. For from the context it would appear
to extend to a neglect of the duties enjoined by the Gospel, as well
as a formal renunciation of faith in it.

The χάρις is variously interpreted. Most recent Commentators
take it to denote Christianity, the Gospel, or the doctrines of the

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 555

Gospel. Theophyl. explains: τὴν πολιτείαν, καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἀγαθά.
Perhaps these senses may be conjoined, and thus it will denote the
Gospel of grace, the doctrines it reveals, the duties it enjoins, and
the blessings it holds out, both temporal and eternal.

In the next words μήτις ῥίξα πικρίας ἄνω φύουσα ἐνοχλῇ, there is
some obscurity, arising (I conceive) from a blending of two meta-
phors, an agricultural and a medical one. We have here an allusion
to, or application of, the words of Deut. 29, 18. The principal dif-
ference is, that for ἐνοχλῇ is read ἐν χολῆ. Hence (τοί, and many
other Critics would alter the ἐνοχλῇ here to ἐν χολῇ, which conjec-
ture they confirm from the Hebrew text, and a similar passage of
Acts 8, 23. But (as the best Critics from Hallet downward remark)
this is not a quotation, but a modified application of the passage.
And this Mr. Slade admits; though he thinks that as the verb
ἐνοχλῇ does not convey a very appropriate meaning, and as it bears
such a striking resemblance to ἐν χολῇ, he conceives there is great
weight in the conjecture. His second argument is stronger than
his first ; for surely ἐνοχλῇ does convey an appropriate sense, and is
well suited both to the medical and the agricultural metaphor ; as
will appear from the Classical passages adduced by the Philologists,
The term literally signifies to give trouble: and it is remarked by
Rosenm., that Hippocrates calls those medicaments ἐγοχλέοντα,
which raise disturbance in the bowels. Now bitter roots, when
once they get into a piece of ground, give no little trouble to eradi-
cate them ; and if not checked, spread so fast that they seem to
infect the ground to a great distance. And to this, I conceive, the
Apostle alludes in the μιανθεῖσι. Though at the same time, there
is also an allusion to the infection of vice. The ῥέξα πικρίας, it
must also be observed, does not refer to one sin, as apostasy, but a
virtual departure or ὑστέρησις from the benefits of the Gospel by
any gross immorality. Thus the Apostle immediately makes men-
tion of fornication and a Heathenish life, at variance with all religi-
ous obligation. But in the former sin the infectious tendency is
especially seen, when the sinner is a female. On which compare
Deut. 29, 1S., a passage which the Apostle might have in mind, as
St. Peter, Acts 8, 23. On the infectious nature of sin in general,
the Apostle at 1 Cor. 15, has the impressive maxim, ‘* Evil commu-
nications corrupt good manners.” And at 1 Cor. 5, 6.: “A little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” In Dionys. Hal. 602, 10. we
have also a very similar passage, where the two metaphors are
blended: ὥστε (I conjecture ὥστε ov) περίεστιν ἡμῖν ἴασιν καὶ ἀλεΐ-
ἤματα τῶν ἀναβλαστανόντων ἐξ αὐτῶν κακῶν ξητεῖν, ὁπόσα εἰς ἀν-
θρώπινον πίπτει λογισμὸν, μενούσης ἔτι τῆς πονηρᾶς Piens* ov γὰρ
ἔσται πέρας, οὐδὲ ἀπαλλαγὴ τῶν δαιμονίων χόλων, ἕως ἂν ἤδη ἡ
βάσκανος ἐριννὺς καὶ φαγέδαινα ἐγκαθημένη πάντα σήπη καὶ διαφ-
θείρῃ τὰ καλά. ᾿ ς

10. μὴ τις πόρνος, &c. In adverting to the case of
Esau, the Apostle does not (as some fancy) impute

fornication to him; but only means (though the

556 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII.

Commentators do not observe it) to hint at the simi-
larity between the fornicator and Esau, namely, in
this, that each sells what is most precious to him for
a worthless and paltry gratification. On the rights
of primogeniture, and the benefits attached thereto,
see the Commentators, or the writers on Jewish An-
tiquities.

17. ἴστε γὰρ----αὐτὴν. There is here an allusion to
Gen. 27, 32—40., which is the best commentary on
the present passage. ΚΚληρονομεῖν signifies simply to
obtain. Esaoyiav, the paternal blessing, and the
benefits flowing from it, and especially those of pri-
mogeniture. For the blessing Esau received was not
the blessing of primogeniture. The peravoia has
reference to Isaac, not to Esau. Meravolas τόπον οὐχ
εὖρε simply signifies, ‘‘ he found no mode by which
to move his father to alter his words.” Schleus.
cites Polyb. 4, 66. He might more aptly have ad-
duced Thucyd. L. 3, 36, 5. ὑστεραία μετανοία τις εὐ-
Obs ἦν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀναλογισμὸς κι τ. a. The αὐτὴν may
be referred either to the εὐλογίαν, or to the μετανοίας :
but the latter seems preferable. See Slade. In
exenr. the ἐκ is intensive.

18—21. Adhortatur Paulus Hebreeos ad sanctimo-
niam, arcessens argumentum a figura legis veteris,
que, ut olim dabatur, populum requirebat purum et
castum. Multo magis nos sub Evangelio oportet
esse sanctos. Quanto enim doctrina evangelica
cum suis promissis preestat legi Mosis, tanto dam-
nabilior est ejus contemptus. Quod ut ostendat,
modum primo enarrat date ac promulgate Legis ;
postea, ut affectus fuit quum populus, tum Moses.
Potest etiam locus hic cum precedenti connecti
sic: Cavete vobis ne deficiatis a christiana religi-
one, qui enim deficiunt, ii amittunt bona multo pres-
tantiora lis, que amisit Esavus cum posteris, ex-
clusus e populo Dei. Nobis Christianis patet aditus
ad Deum et ccelum; veteri illi populo Dei non lice-
bat proprius accedere ad Deum. Lex Mosis est
severa, terrorem incutiens; religio Christiana est

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 557

mitis, animum tranquillans. Hane rem _ illustrat
Paulus ex historia Exod. 19, 20. et cum conditione
veteris illius populi comparat feliciorem condi-
tionem Christianorum. (Storr.and Rosenm.)

18. ψηλαφωμένω, which is to be touched, reached.
So Rosenm. observes that ψηλαφάω sometimes signi-
fies not so much to feed, as to attain. And he might
have cited Acts 17, 27. ϑητεῖν τὸν Θεὸν, εἰ ψηλαφήσειαν
αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, where see the note. Whitby ex-
plains: ‘* which was material, and by being touched
after the prohibition, Exod. 19, 22. would procure
present death.” Compare Exod. 16, 10. and Deut.
4, 11 and 15. Γνόφος denotes a collection of clouds
piled together, or the thick darkness, almost to be
felt, thence arising. ‘Thus σκότος iS here added.

19. καὶ σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ, καὶ Φωνῇ ῥημάτων. By the
σάλπιγγος ἤχῳ is denoted the pealing of thunder,
which preceded and ushered in the Φωνῇ ῥημάτων,
the words of the commandments. So Matt. 24, 31.
ἐν σάλπιγγι φωνῆς μεγάλης, where see the note. Com:
pare also 1 Cor. 15, 52. and 1 Thess. 4,16. Παρῃ-
THT ATO μὴ reamnetiuens αὐτοῖς λόγον, εν prayed that not
a word more might be added.” Παραιτεῖσθαι signi-
fies to deprecate ‘(as αἰτεῖσθαι, to seek): and verbs of
such a sense are often followed by a μὴ pleonastic.
Such appears to be the true ratio of the expression ;
though most Interpreters take the wapyr. in the
sense to pray.

Τὸ διαστελλόμενον, the solemn edict, the forbidding
them to touch the mount, Exod. 19, 22. The words
following show the cause of their fear, namely, the
awful and mysterious sanctity of that ‘place, which
not even a beast might touch without being put to
death. The words ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται are not
found in the best MSS., Versions, and Fathers ; and
having the appearance of coming from the margin.

21. καὶ, οὕτω---εἶπεν. I would point thus: καὶ,
οὕτω---φανταϑόμιενον. ‘The εἶπεν is thought by Ro-
senm. to refer to Moses’s thoughts; or it may (he
adds) be understood of the action. It must (I shoukd

558 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII.

conceive), at least, refer to the uttering of the words
following, at least to himself. Compare Job 4, 14.
Τὸ φανταϑόμιενον, the appearance, viz. of the fire, thun-
der, thick darkness, &c. The general sense con-
tained in the whole passage is as follows: ‘“ You
have not embraced a religion in which your approach

is‘encircled with such ineffable terrors.”

22—24. The Apostle now compares the economy of the Old Tes-
tament with that of the New, and the happiness of those who live
under the New Dispensation, (Dind.) It is of most importance
here to attend to the points of contrast here marked out, which are
skilfully stated by Theophyl. thus: ‘* They did not approach, as we
do, but stood afar off. Instead of Sinai, we have the spiritual
Mount Sion, the spiritual Jerusalem, i.e. heaven iiself, and not, as
they had, the desert. [Sols. 51, 3. ‘ will make her desert like the
garden of the Lord.” Edit.] Instead of the people, we have myriads
of angels. Instead of fear, joy (for that is implied by the ravny.).”
And Rosenm., contrasting the two Dispensations, says: “ἢ Mount
Sion King David had his palace; in the heavenly city Jesus Christ
hath his. Jerusalem was called ἱερόπολις ; but with better reason
is heaven called the πόλις Geos.”

The 2érros—raynyiper is, by Carpzov and Slade, joined with
μυρίασὶν ἀγγέλων. And this is supported by the antient Interpre-
ters, and seems the true construction. Παγήγυρις 18 often used in
the Classical writers to denote a general assembly of a whole people,
which, in antient times (in the Grecian states, and their Asiatic,
Italian, and other colonies), was drawn together by games and festi-
vals, sometimes annual, and sometimes quadrennial. Hence the
term came to be applied to the solemn assemblages of the Israelites
at Jerusalem on the celebration of the feasts. It answers to the
Heb. 1x10 (a feast) at Hos. 2, 11.; and is explained by Hesych.
ἑορτὴ. Here it may either denote the general assemblage, or the
place of assemblage. .

The πρωτοτόκων is, by some, explained of the Apostles. But it
may also denote all those personages eminent for their faith and
virtue; since the word, though properly used of those who are dear
as a first-born, yet extended to all to whom might be applied the’
term carissimus. Indeed, the phrase following ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογε-
γραμμένων seems exegetical of the preceding. On the force of azoy. |
see the note on Luke 2, 1. Kai κριτῇ---τετελειωμένων. It is rightly
remarked by Rosenm., that, from the context, it is plain κριτῇ de-
notes judge, not in its harsher acceptation, of one denouncing
punishments, or of a legislator, at whose presence on Mount Sinai
even Moses trembled (see ver. 21.) ; but in that milder sense in
which the term is used at 10, 30. and 2 Tim. 4, S. And so our
Poet, ‘“‘ Thus the great judge, with equal eye o’er all,” &c. So
also at Matt. 12, 23. κρινονία is explained, by the best Commenta-
tors, as simply denoting pre-eminence over,” &c. (where see the.
note.) In the τετελειωμένω» there is an agonistical metaphor, used |

HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ. 559

of those who have attained the great end (τέλος) of their exertions,
the prize. See Phil. 3, 12. Theophyl. explains ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν
εὐδοκιμησάντων καὶ τελείων φανέντων παρὰ Θεῷ. So Doddr.: jus-
tified before God, sanctified in their natures, and holy in their lives.’
The term is used of our Lord’s exaltation to glory at 7, 28: Here
it is applied to denote that blessed state to which the disembodied
spirits of the righteous may be permitted to attain before the resur-
rection (for τετελειωμένων is, as Schleus, says, for rerehewwpéva) ;
and it is used, by anticipation, of the τέλος, or prize, destined to re-
ward their labours. See Slade and Hallet.

To this glorious assemblage, which he so beautifully figures, the
Apostle finally adds καὶ διαθήκης:---ἰΑβελ. In which words there is
some obscurity arising from what Doddr, calls a transposition of
what one should have thought the most natural order here. This
he rightly ascribes to the rapturous manner in which St. Paul con-
ceived of these things, and his fulness of matter when he touched
upon them. Rosenm. here supposes an hendiadis, and renders: “ Ad
Jesum, qui novum foedus sanxit piaculo sanguinis sui,” &c. After
all that has been said, L must assent to the opinion of those eminent
Critics who think that παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αβὲλ may signify, ‘ better than
(the blood of) ΔΕ]. Which is quite agreeable to the popular
style, and is countenanced by the antients. Some MSS., indeed,
read τὸ ᾿Αβὲλ, se. αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Αβὲλ, but perhaps by a gloss. The
αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ adverts to that ceremonial sprinkling by the blood
of Christ in the New Covenant, by which our hearts (as the Apostle
said, supra 10, 12.) are “" sprinkled from an evil conscience,” and
we are liberated from the penalty of sin. So Theophyl.: Td yap
αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ῥαντισθὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἀκάθαρε καὶ ἡγίασε. Thesense
of κρείττονα λαλεῖ παρὰ τὸν ᾿Αβὲλ is clear from Gen. 4, 10., cited
by Theophyl., who adduces the following exposition of Cyril: τὸ
μὲν αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Αβὲλ, κατεκράγει τοῦ φονευτοῦ" τὸ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν λαλεῖ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ πατέρα. See Rosenm., who com-
pares 2 Macc. 8, 4.,and explains: ‘ The blood of Abel calls for ven-
geance, whereas that of Christ for remission of sins ; Christ inter-
cedes for us, and saves us everlastingly.”

25,20. βλέπετε μὴ παραιτήσασθε τὸν λαλοῦντα, B
παραιτ. is meant excuse yourselves from listening to,
reject, refuse to hear. Λαλοῦντα, ““ him that so
speaketh,” namely, better things than Abel. For
the λαλοῦντα is rightly referred by the antients to
Christ ; though by some moderns it is understood of
God. Ei γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι----ἀποστρεφόμενοι, ““ For if they
did not escape punishment who on earth rejected
him that spake unto them, how much less shall we,
if we despise him who speaketh from heaven. By
the ἐκεῖνοι---παραιτησάμενοι are meant the stiff-necked
and ever unbelieving Israelites. By the τὸν γρημα-

560 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII.

rigovra is meant Moses. The term ypyper. signifies
to promulgate Divine oracles, as Moses did the Law
at Mount Sinai. So supra, 8, 5. καθὼς κεχρημάτισται
Μωσῆς" and 11, 7. χρηματισθεὶς, &c. And so Jose-
phus very fr equently. Tov ἀπ᾽ οὐρανών, scil. χρημα-
τίβοντα. This, Rosenm. says, is for χρηματίσαντα.
But Jesus Christ may be said to address men from
heaven by his Gospel, and will continue to do so to
the end of the world. ᾿Αποστρεφόύμενοι, turn away
from, reject.

26. οὗ ἡ Φωνὴ τὴν γὴν ἐσάλευσε τότε, ““ Whose (ie
the Messiah’s) voice shook the earth,” i. e. the mount.
See Exod. 19, 18. Nov δὲ ἐπήγγελται, ““ but he hath
promised, saying (namely in Hage. 2, 6.), Yet once,
and again, I shake not only the earth, but also the
heaven.” The νῦν, Rosenin. observes, is to be taken
absolutely, i.e. in the sense of quod attinet ad pre-
sentia tempora. ‘Phe éryyy. may be understood
rather of solemn declaration than promise; though as
the thing declared is good in respect to the persons
addressed, therefore the term has both propriety and
elegance. It is agreed on by the best Commenta-
tors, that the highly figurative language of the Pro-
phet must be understood as predictive of that total
alteration, and thorough reformation in religion by
the promulgation of the Gospel, and which was also
brought to pass in that very age.* Of this metaphor
examples are cited by Pierce. See also the note of
Whitby.

Q7. τὸ δὲ---σαλευομένα, “ Now that yet once indi-
cates a change of the things which have been put in
commotion, inasmuch as they are so made that those
which are not shaken remain.” It is observed, bv
Rosenm., that we usually say ἔτι ἅπαξ, when we are
planning something great and hitherto unheard of.

* So Rosenm., who thus explains: ‘‘ Magnas, inquit, antehae-
feci mutationes; sed restat lunge major. Ila verba—commovebo
coelum, terram, maria, omnesque nationes—indicant: efficiam maxi-
mami orbis terrarum conversionem et revolutionem, sic ut omnes
nationes ad Messiam veniant.”

HEBREWS, CHAP. XII. 561

But perhaps the phrase may also denote some change
of order or system that shall be unalterable: for the
ἅπαξ may mean once for all. The τὰ σαλευόμενα is,
by the best Interpreters, taken to denote the Mosaic
economy, shaken to the centre and entirely abro-
gated by Christ: and consequently the τὰ μὴ car.
will denote the system which succeeded to it, and
which will be unalterable until the final consumma-
tion of all things. And so Rosenm. Other inter-
pretations (though, I think, less probable ones) of
this dark passage may be seen in Theophyl. and
Dind. See also Slade.

28, 29. διὸ βασιλείαν---εὐλαβείας, ‘ Having, there-
fore, received an unchangeable and unalienable king-
dom,” &c. ‘This, again, is spoken by anticipation,
at least in its full sense, namely, the fruition of
eternal felicity. Rosenm. would take παραλαμβά-
vores for παραληψόμενοι. But this is unnecessary.
For the being put into a state of salvation is often
designated under the same image as salvation itself.
See Rev. 1, 6. 5, 10. Luke 12, 82., &c. Or by
receiving a kingdom may be meant, being received
into the Messiah’s kingdom, which had already com-
menced, and which will continue to the end of the
world. "ἔχωμεν χάριν is a phrase of no little diffi-
culty. Rosenm. and Dind. explain it, “ let us give
thanks.” But that yields a weak and inapposite
sense. I prefer, with the antients and most moderns,
to take χάριν in the sense grace; and éy. for xartey.,
“let us hold fast,” &c. - Others interpret, “let us so
have it as to use it.” But that is included in the
interpretation just detailed. Εὐαρέστως, acceptably.
Μετὰ aidous καὶ εὐλαβείας, ““ with deep reverence and
fear (of offending him).” Or there may be an hen-
diadis. _I would compare Polyzn. 1, 16. θειοτέρω
φόβω. ‘The next words assign a reason for the
εὐλαβ. ; and are taken from Deut. 4, 24. The force
of the metaphor is truly awful; and the sense (as
Grot. remarks) is, that God is no less angry with
Christians who sin than he. was with the Jsraelites

VOL. VIII. 20

562 HEBREWS, CHAP. XII, -XIII.

when they sinned ; and those whom He overtakes
He can easily, like a consuming fire, bring to perdi-
tion. This is meant, Theophyl. observes, not only
to alarm the wicked, but console the suffering and
oppressed righteous ; inasmuch as they have a God
who is able thus to consume their enemies.

CHAP. XIII.

Verse 1, 2. Having brought forward what forms
the principal subject of the Epistle, he now con-
cludes, with subjoining certain precepts, and com-
mences with charity, as being the mother of all other
virtues. (Hardy.) :

1. ἡ φιλαδελφία μενέτω, “ Let mutual love among
Christian brethren continue to be cultivated.” Com-
pare Rom. 12,10. ‘The practice among Christians
of calling each other by the endearing name of bro-
ther seems to have been derived from the custom of
the Jews. It is observed by Theophyl., that the
Apostle does not say acquire the virtues of Φιλαδελ-
dia and φιλοξενία ; for learned them they had: but,
amidst their peculiar dangers, they might be remiss
in the practice of them. Hence the propriety of the
μενέτω, 1. 6. ἑδραία ἔστω.

As closely connected with the above virtue, and
the chief evidence of it, the Apostle then inculcates
Φιλοξενία. In the μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε there is a sort of
Hebrew idiom not uncommon. It imports the being
continually alive to, and studious of. From the close
connexion of φιλοξενία and φιλαδελφία we may sup-
pose that the strangers here meant are Christian stran-
gers. Now the argument with which this admoni-
tion is strengthened is taken from Gen. 18 & 19., as
showing the reward of the virtue in question. Ro-
senm. states it thus: ‘* We may often chance to en-
tertain guests of far greater consequence than at first
sight they may have appeared to be. Hence the re-
wards of such hospitality will be greater than they ~
would seem.” It is remarked, by Julian ap. Wets.,

HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 563

that nothing so much tended to the growth of Chris-
tianity as the practice of hospitality among Chris-
tians one to another.

3. μιμνήσκεσθε---σώματι. The idiom in μιμν. is
like that in μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε just before. The decpiay
must, like the φιλαδ. and φιλοξ., be understood of
Christians in bonds (namely, for the Gospel’s sake).
‘Qs συνδεδεμένοι, “as if you were suffering the same
evils.” So the Virgilian, ‘* Haud ignara mali miseris
succurrere disco;” and Achill. Tat. 7. p. 419. ἐγὼ
δὲ ὁ ἄθλιος, οὔτε αὐτὸν ἰδὼν, οὔτε ἔργου τινος κοινωνήσας ἢ
λόγου, συναπηγόμιην αὐτῷ δεδεμένος, ὡς τοῦ ἔργου κοινωνός.

3. τῶν κακουχουμένων, ““ the afflicted and mal-
treated.” In the ὄντες ἐν σώμαπι there is a Hebraism
for ἄνθρωποι ὄντες. Yet Rosenm. cites from Porphyr.
de abst. 38. τὶ δεινὸν ἦν, ἐν σώματι εἶναι; On this
and the following verse the Philological Commenta-
tors adduce numerous Classical citations ; but they
omit to notice that the strong argument to succour
human distress, from the recollection that we our-
selves are men, and exposed to like calamities, is
frequent in the Classical writers, in whom it is
usually expressed by ἄνθρωπον ὄντα.

4. τίμιος---- Θεός. At τίμιος 6 γάμος there is an
ellipsis either of ἐστι, or rather ἔστω, as the best
Critics are agreed; and this is more agreeable to
what precedes and what follows. The κοιτὴ is syno-
nymous with the γάμος in the former clause of this
parallelism. ᾿Εν πᾶσιν is, by Dind., taken as a mas-
culine for inter omnes, i.e. both the single and mar-
ried: by others, as a neuter, with the subaudition of
πράγμασι, omni ex parte. And this ellipsis I find
supplied in Dinarch. 94, 34. ἀχθομένη τοῖς παροῦσι
πράγμασι. But the former method is approved by
the most eminent Commentators, and seems more
agreeable to what follows.

4. κοίτη ἀμίαντος (scil. ἔστω), “let it be kept pure,
holy, inviolate, and unpolluted by adultery.” If ἔστι

» be supplied in the former clause, the sense will be

this : ‘* Marriage is in all respects honourable, and the
202

564 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. -

bed is without defilement.” The ἀμίαντος will then de-
note that which is not liable to censure, nor morally
evil. Now the errors even of that early age might
make it not improper for the Apostle to inculcate
this truth.* It is, however, not improbable that the
sentence is purposely left doubtful, in order that both
the above senses might be included.

ἹΚρινεῖ is for κατακρινεῖ. This’ the Apostle de-
nounces not only against adultery, but fornication,
which leads to it. How different from the Grecian
sages and legislators, who tolerated simple fornica-
tion, as tending to preserve the virtue of married
women! Rosenm. observes, that when it is said
God shall judge, it is suggested that he will punish
even those violaters of purity who escape the world’s
judgment, or are not punished by human laws.

ὅ, 0. ἀφιλάργυρος---παροῦσιν. To the mention of
fleshly lusts is aptly subjoined that of the heartless
avarice which is usually found in the votaries of sen-
suality. Tpéros, for τρόποι, mores. Though the
singular is found in good authors, as Plato, and his
imitator Philo. The ellipses here are ἔτω anyre.
On ἀρκ. I have before treated. Τοῖς παροῦσιν, 561}.
χρήμασι, “ such means as are in your possession
(without excessive anxiety after what is not so).”
The παροῦσιν, too, has a notion of what is present,
in opposition to what is future. And this sense is
here very suitable. Wets. well paraphrases : “ Ne
anxii sint, sed officium facientes futura Deo com-
mendent, mediocribus interim contenti.”. Among
his numerous Classical citations are Justin 3, 1, 6.
Bacabasum, qui presenti statu contentus rem prodit
Artaxerxi. Phocylid. 4. ᾿Αρκεῖσθαι παρέουσι, καὶ ἀλ-
λοτρίων ἀπέχεσθαι. To which I add D. Cass. 253,
77. τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀρκεσθήσομαι" & 324, 26. τῇ παρούσῃ

* Even among the Heathens, it may be observed, marriage was
considered. not as a civil compact but as a religious ceremony.
Thus Thucyd. 1, 15,6. reckons this among the τὰ ἱερὰ, where the
Scholiast annotates thus: καὶ γὰρ ὁ γάμος ἱερός. And Duker refers
to Spanh. Dissert. 11, de Nummis, p. 292.

HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 565

καταστάσει dex. Xen. Cyr. 2, 1, 6. ἀρκεῖ μοι τὰ πα-
ρόντα. Joseph. 858, 29. τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀρκών ἦν. Di-
narch. 94, 84. ἀχθομένη τοῖς παροῦσι πράγμασι.

Αὐτὸς, i.e. Θεὸς, just before. But the Hebrews
sometimes use N17 in like manner. ‘The words are
from Joh. 1, 6.; though similar ones are found in
Deut. 31, 6. 1 Paral. 28, 20. The words following
are from Ps. 118, 6., in which ἄνθρωπος is emphatic,
and signifies men. The passage is (as Rosenm. ob-
serves) very suitable to the Christians, who, for reli-
gion’s sake, were often deprived of their property.

7. μνημονεύετε τών ἡγουμένων ὑμών. ‘The Apostle
exhorts them to imitate the example of their spi-
ritual pastors, and those who have furthered their
Christian instruction. The ἡγουμ. will denote
Christian teachers of every kind, both Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons. See Luke 22, 26. Acts
15. 22. “Ὧν ἀναθεωροῦντες---πίστιν, “ surveying, atten-
tively considering the end and result of whose con-
duct, imitate their faith.” The ave is intensive; for
the term (as Theoph. observes) contains a metaphor
taken from painting, in which the pupils steadily
survey the archetype of their master. ᾿Αναστροφῆς
manner of life, conduct. So Theophyl. πολιτείας.
Compare 1 Tim, 4,12. James 3,12. 1 Pet. 4, 15 and
18. So Job. 4, 19. ἐν πάση ἀναστροῷῃ. And so not
unfrequently in the Classical writers. Τέλος denotes
the result, namely, the being liberated from the evils
of this world, and received to the fruition of the joys
of another and a better. In the next words μιμεῖσθε
τὴν πίστιν the Apostle adverts to that principle which
would enable them to show such examples of con-
stancy and of virtue. See Theophyl.

8. ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς---αἰῶνας. 1 agree with Mr. Slade,
that these words are to be referred both to the pre-
ceding and the following verses, and be understood
of the nature and object of their faith, as well as of
doctrines of their religion. This is supported by the
expositions of the antient Commentators. See Theoph..
It-is observed by Rosenm., that the formula χθὲς καὶ

566 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII.

σήμερον answers to the Hebr. ΘΠ ὩΣ byan-"pa at
Exod. 5, 14. uéi olim, ita et nunc. Compare Gen. 31,
2, and Sir. 38, 14.

9. διδαχαῖς --- περιφέρεσθε, ** Be not hurried and
tossed about with various and strange doctrines.”
Some -MSS. read zapad., which many eminent
Critics prefer. The sense will then be, “ carried
out of your course.” But this, as the subject here is
instability, not apostacy, is less apposite. Whereas
περιφέρεσθαι signifies to be tossed to and fro, and so
to go no where. Besides, the common reading is
strongly confirmed by the parallel expression at Eph.
4, 14. pyjkeri—mepiepopevor παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκα-
λίας. Other reasons for retaining it may be seen
in Ern.

The ξέναις is thought by the best Commentators
to have reference to the doctrines of the Judaizers:
but it may advert to all doctrines at variance with the
Christian verity. Καλὸν γὰρ---περιπαθήσαντες. ‘The
καλὺν----οὐ is by some taken to be equivalent to melius
est. But this seems an unnecessary refinement. Be-
βαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν is explained by Rosenm., as a
Hebraism answering to 1? TD, se recreare, Gen. 18,
5.; and he renders it support and comfort. Xeapiri
denotes the Gospel, the doctrine of salvation by
grace, without the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law;
as is plain from the antithetical βρώμασι, which de-
notes the meat offerings of the Mosaic Law, which
some wished to be with the Christian Eucharistical
sacrifices. Iepimareiv here, as often, denotes habi-
tual practice of.

Others regard the καλὸν---καρδίαν as parenthetical,
and lay down a somewhat different, but not (I think)
so apt a sense.

10. ἔχομεν---λατρεύοντες. Sequitur locus propter
adhibitas allegorias satis tortuosus atque molestus,
in quo scriptor phantasiz sue vividitati admodum
indulgens ab una sententia in aliam, etsi maximé
semotam, transiliire non dubitat. Namque quum
autea dixisset, eos, qui ciborum discrimen observas.

HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 567

sent, nihil inde utilitatis cepisse: nunc mortem
Christi, quia nonnulla sacrificia in cibum aliis cede-
bant, cum sacrificio confert, sed eo maximé impedi-
tum locum reddit, et perplexum. (Dind.)

The θυσιαστήριον is by some interpreted of Christ ;
by others, of the Eucharistical table ; by others again,
of the doctrine of the Gospel; and by others, of Di-
vine worship. ‘The first and second interpretations
seem to most deserve the preference: but I agree
with Dind., Rosenm., and Mackn., who suppose it
put, by metonymy, for the victim itself, i. e. Christ,
who was offered up for our sins; which offering is
commemorated in the sacrament. ’E& οὗ φαγεῖν----
λατρεύοντες, “‘Christians have their victim, but of
which they are not authorized to eat, who are at-
tached to the tabernacle (worship), as are the Ju-
daizers.” Such is the sense laid down by the best
modern Commentators. See Dind. and Rosenm.
Now the reason is plainly this, that by placing salva-
tion on the ground of works, instead of grace, they
deprive themselves of the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice.
This is especially illustrated in the Epistle to the
Galatians and Ephesians.

11,12. Ὧν γὰρ, &c. In these words the Apostle
assigns a reason why to those attached to the Jewish
rites it is not permitted to enjoy the benefit of that
victim which Christians derive from it; namely, be-
cause they despise and regard him in no other light
than as a man deservedly brought to an ignominious
punishment. He adds, that at this no Christian
ought to stumble ; for it was expedient that our vic-
tim should, in this respect too, be like unto those
offered up by the High Priests. The whole passage
is allegorical. All the words in these verses are op-
posed to each other; αἷμα ϑώων and αἷμα ἴδιον Xoic-
τοῦ" ᾿Αρχιερεὺς O. T. and Jesus, ἀρχιερεὺς μέγας τῆς
ὁμολογίας: Κατακαίειν and πάσχειν" ἔξω τῆς παρεμβο-
λῆς, and ἔχω τῆς πύλης. As in sacrifices περὶ ἁμαρ-
τίας the victims were burnt, ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, so
Christ was nailed to the cross ἔξω τῆς πύλης, accord-

568 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII.

ing tocustom. See Levit. 16, 2, 13, seq. 4, 16—18.
5—7. On the burning of victims, whose blood was
brought into the holy place, or Sanctum Sanctorum,
see Levit. 16, 27. 4, 21,11. s. 6, 23. Now in this
respect was Christ made like unto these victims,
namely, that he suffered without the gates of Jeru-
salem. But by his blood he really expiated the peo-
ple. Christians enjoy the victim, 1. e. the benefits of
Christ, who died for our sins; whereas the Jews,
who reject Jesus and his sacrifice, are not permitted
so to do. (Rosenm.) See also Whitby, Wells, and
Slade.

13. τοίνυν----ζέροντες, “ Wherefore let us go out of
the camp to him, and bear the ignominy shown to
him,” i. e. let us, after his example, patiently bear
the insults, persecutions, and anathemas of the Jews,
and, in a general way, whatever evil is to be endured
for Christ and his religion.” Now to gooué with him,
is to bring ourselves to the same mind as that with
which he went thither; and so to consider what he
there suffered for us, as to feel unshaken attachment
to his religion. Such is the sense as laid down by
the best antient and modern Interpreters. See
Chrys., Theophyl., Dind., and Rosenm. The ἔξω
πύλης is explained by Theophyl. ἔξω κόσμου, i. 6. the
vanities and vices of the world.

14. οὐ γὰρ---ἐπιϑητοῦμεν. This is, as Theophy]l.
observes, probatory, and meant to indicate the rea-
son, ἕο. (See Dind.) And he explains: ‘‘ we have
in this world no permanent abode (nay not even the
worldis such). We ought therefore to fly from it,
and run to that city which is to come, even heaven.”
The μέλλουσαν, as Ern. observes, involves the idea of
eternity. It is remarked by Carpz., that there is
here an allusion to what was said of Abraham, 11,
8—16., who looked to the πόλιν μέλλουσαν. The
ἐπιϑητοῦμιεν is emphatical, i. 6. “we have to seek.”

15. δι’ αὐτοῦ ody—adrov. From the whole passage,
especially 9—11. the Apostle deduces this exhorta-
tion: ‘‘ Wherefore celebrate God with hymns, and

HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 569

tell forth his benefits with a grateful mind.” He,
however, employs the sacrificial image, yet in his
mind; and means to say, that as the old Priesthood
is abolished, and fleshly sacrifices no longer to be
offered, we are to have recourse to spiritual ones,
literally, immolate hymns to God, as if sacrifices.
Now that the Jews made much of external divine
worship consist in sacrifices, and so represented va-
rious things, as penitence, prayer, alms, and hospi-
tality, under that image, has been shown and exem-
plified by Schoettg., Wets., Heinr., ἕο. (Dind.)

15. δι’ αὐτοῦ. Some render “ because of him.” And
so Ern.: “ propter Christum.” But I prefer, with
most antients and moderns, “through him (i. e.
Christ,) as our Mediator.” The θυσία ἀνέσεως an-
swers to the Hebr. TWN M3} at Lev. 7, 12. So Philo
842. (cited by Carpz.) tells us what this is, adding
that αἰνέσεως denotes ὕμνους, εὐδαιμονισμοὺς, θυσίας καὶ
ἄλλας εὐχαριστίας πρὸς τὸν τὰ ἀγαθὰ δωρούμενον.

15. καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολουγούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.
This phrase is from Hos. 14, 2. where the Sept. de-
duce 5 from 5, not 1B, a calf. The sense is:
‘“‘ whatever proceeds from the lips and mouth.” So
Rosen. Schleus. takes the καρπὸν χειλέων for λόγον. But
this will be too much paring down the sense. ‘The
whole passage may be thus translated: “ Through
him (i. e. Jesus Christ,) let us continually offer
up (not the bloody sacrifice of animals, nor the vain
oblations of the fruits of the earth,) the sacrifice of
praise to God, even the fruit (or oblation) of lips,
celebrating his name.”* Ὁμολογεῖν here, as often,

* So Justin Martyr, Greg., Naz., Chrys., Clem. Alex., Euseb., and
others cited by Suic. Thes. Eccl, 1, 1425. truly observe, that God
requires nothing but the sacrifices (bloodless ones) of pious praise.
It is strange that Pococke should render the words, “ the calves of
our lips :’’ a very harsh interpretation, and founded in error; for in
the former member of the sentence the Apostle has reference to the
bloody, but in the latter, to the bloodless sacrifices of the Mosaic
Law. Compare Hos. 14, 3. and Is. 57,19. A similar mode of
expression occurs in Pind, Isthm. 8, 101. ἐπέων δὲ καρπὸς ov κατέφ-
Ove, and Pind. Pyth. 2, 184, φρενῶν ἔλαχε καρπὸν. See Blomf. on
Eschyl. Theb. 614.

570 HEBREWS, CHAP. ΧΙ.

signifies to laud and celebrate. ‘Thus (Rosenm. ob-
serves) the Hebr. NWMis rendered by ἐξομολογεῖν and
αἰνεῖν.

16. τῆς δὲ---ὖὸ Θεός. The εὐποιίας is used κατ᾽ ἐξο-
χὴν to denote beneficence and charity ; and κοινωνίας
(which signifies the making others partakers of our
goods) is added exegetically, or to strengthen the
sense. Hence may be emended a passage of Ar-
temid. 2, 14. p. 166. πρὸς κοινωνίαν εἰσι ἀγαθοὶ, διὰ τὴν
πρὸς ἀλλήλους κοινωνίαν καὶ εὐνοίαν, for which I conjec-
ture εὐποίαν. In these words the Apostle adheres to
the same metaphor, or allegory, as at the former verse,
where see the note. On εὐραρεστεῖται, (which signi-
fies, “is well pleased,”) it is observed by Rosenm. :
‘¢ Graecorum mos est, passiva formare et cum Nomi-
nativo construere, non minus ab Activis Dativum,
quam Accusativum regentibus.”

17. πείθεσθε---ἀποδώσοντος. It is plain that wed.
and tre. are expressions denoting to obey, show re-
verence to. The words αὐτοί---ἀποδώσοντος are by
Rosenm. considered to be parenthetical. But that is
not necessary. It should rather seem that the whole
passage is highly elliptical ; and it may be rendered
thus: ‘* They watch over your souls, and act (or
ought to act) as those who must give an account,
(and careful should you be) that they may do this
(i.e. give this account) with satisfaction, and not
with grief; for that were unprofitable and evil for
you (as well as for them).” Such appears to be the
complete sense; though the Commentators are not
quite agreed. It is well observed by Theodoret, that
the Apostle here enjoins on the disciples obedience
to their teachers, and at the same time reminds the
latter of their awful responsibility. Jor the λόγον
ἀποδώσοντες suggests the reward, or punishment (as
the case may be), which must result from the account
they have to give of their stewardship. rev. is a
very strong term, denoting deep seated grief. In
ἀλυσιτελὲς there is a common litotes. The ὑμῖν is
emphatical ; and the force of the ἀλυσιτ. is well
pointed out by Owen and Doddr.

HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII. 571

18, 19. προσεύχεσθε περὶ τἡἡμιῶν ---- ἀναστρέφεσθαι,
** Pray for us; for we trust we merit it by having a
good conscience, in all things wishing to act righte-
ously and holily.” ‘This, Rosenm. observes, glances
at the Jewish teachers, who had calumniated him,
and raised disturbances among the Christian bre-
thren. ‘The sense of the next-words is plain. The
humility as well as piety contained in this and the
preceding verse is truly edifying. ᾿Αποκαταστ. signi-
fies here, to be restored for the various purposes of
Evangelical instruction. From these words, Rosenm.
observes, it does not follow that he was then in
bonds; but rather being released from prison, he
waits for Timothy as the companion of his journey
(ver. 23).

20, 21. ὁ δὲ Ocis—Tyoodv, ‘ May God, the author
of peace and every kind of happiness, who raised
from the dead the great and supreme Shepherd of
the sheep (i. e. the Lord of all Christians), by the
blood of the everlasting covenant (offered by that
great Intercessor), may He perfect you in every
good work, to the doing of his will (and in order
thereto), working in you what is well pleasing in his
sight, &c. The use of ποιμὴν to denote supreme
head, is common even in the Classical writers, from
Homer downwards. The ἐν αἵματι διαθηκῆς αἰωνίου
strongly inculcates the doctrine of the Atonement.
Karaprigw signifies properly to make perfectly sound,
ἄρτιος. ‘The ἐν ἔργῳ ἀγαθώ is taken by the best Com-
mentators for εἰς ἔργον ἀγοθὸν. So the Hebrews use τῇ

The above clause εἰς τὸ----αὐτοῦ is closely connected
with the preceding: and rawy depends upon καταρ-
τίσαι. ΠΟ mode in which this working is effected is
explained by the Apostle himself at Phil. 2, 13 and
14. where see the note.

22. ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως, “ Bear
with,” &c. ‘This suggests the idea of profit by; for
he who bears with good counsel cannot fail to profit
by it. By the λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως are, of course,
meant the hortatory and consolatory parts of the

572 HEBREWS, CHAP. XIII.

Epistle. The words καὶ γὰρ----ὑμῖν are elliptical, and
signify, ‘for though I could have said much more,
and written a large epistle, yet I have been content
with this brief admonition.” ᾿Επιστέλλω in the
sense fo write an epistle, is very frequent.

23, 24. Τινώσκετε--- ἀπολελυμένον, “ Know ye that
our brother Timothy is set at liberty.” ᾿Απολελυμέ-
νον, “ e vinculis in libertatem prodiisse.” Some think
ἀπολύεσθαι here signifies proficisci, set off. And thus
they render, ‘‘ know that he has set off.” See Noes-
selt Opusce. Fascic. 1. p. 28. seq. Oi ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας,
“ the Italians.” So in Philo Legat. ad Caium οἱ ἀπὸ
Ῥώμης are Romans ; oi ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, Alexan-
drines. Now there were many Christians already not
only at Rome, but throughout all Italy. (Rosenm.)

573

EPISTLE OF JAMES.

WirH respect to the question on the canonical
authority of this Epistle, the following are the words
of Euseb. L. 2, 23., as translated “by Michaelis :
«But it must be observed that this Epistle is now
considered as spurious.” ‘This, however, is a very
incorrect version. In the original we have ἴστεον δὲ
ws νοθεύεται μὲν. Eusebius plainly pronounces his
own opinion of the Epistle being spurious, and does
not report it as merely that of others. As to the
reason assigned by Euseb. for his rejection, namely,
because not many of the antients have mentioned it,
that appears little satisfactory, nor seems to afford
any conclusive argument against the genuineness of
this Epistle.

On the Epistle itself it is observed by Hottinger ap. Jaspis :
“* Oratio Jacobi insignem habet δεινότητα, grandis est, vehemens
atque incitata, frequens imaginum luminibus et comparationum
atque exemplorum luce. Interdum sublimis spiritu poene prophe-
tico adsurgit, et sententiarum pondere ac troporum et figurarum
ornamentis et sermonis poeticii fulgorem effertur.” Jaspis gives
the following plan of the Epistle : “ Jacobus Christianis extra Pa-
lestine fines per orbem terrarum dispersis, maximé in Asia Minori,
primum graviter injungit patientiam in miseriis fortiter perferendis.
Deinde docet, meram religionem Christianam notitiam nihil plane
prodesse, nisi facta accesserint ; ad opprimendas pravas cupiditates
et peccati illecebras prorsus evitandas admonet, a rixandi studio
avocat, et pietatem re et facto maximeé conspicuam inprimis urget, a
nugarum temeritate, fastu, invidid et cupiditate in aliis dijudicandis
eos deterret, ad mansuetudinem contra, vite integritatem, equali-
tatem, et hospitalitatem cohortatur. Tum divitibus superbientibus
peenas divinas annuntiat, at pauperum afflictorum animos erigere
studet, iisque, si pii perstiterent, auxilium divinum promittit, levita-

STA JAMES, CHAP. I.

tem quoque in jurando vetat, officia egrotis preescribit, ad preces
excitat, quas mirificé valere. Eliz exemplo probat. Tandem spem
peccatorum veniz omnibus facit, qui animum ab omni vitio revoca-
tum rectissimé confirmaverit, et ad alios emendandos gravissime
incitat.”

CHAP. I.

Ver. 1. Κυρίου I. X. δοῦλος. Rosenm. observes,
that from this expression it cannot be inferred either
that James was, or was not of the twelve Apostles.
And, on the other hand, from the omission of ἀπόσ-
toaos it cannot be concluded that he was ποέ an
Apostle. For (as Benson observes) he was writing
to persons to whom his qualifications were well
known; therefore it was unnecessary to insert it.
Thus neither does St. John mention his Apostle-
ship, any more than St. Paul in his Epistles to the
Philippians, ‘Thessalonians, and to Philemon.

1. ταῖς δώδεκα Φυλαῖς ταῖς ἕν τῇ διασπορᾷ. The ἐν
τῇ διασπορᾷ, 561]. οὔσαις, is for διεσπαρμέναις. It is
not agreed whether by these are to be understood
the Jews dispersed, or the Jewish Christians. 'The
latter is indeed the more probable, though the dis-
putants seem to make a distinction without a differ-
ence; for although written especially for the use of
the latter, it must have been ¢ndirectly intended for
the benefit of the former. ‘The same applies to the
Epistle to the Romans. (See the introductory matter
to that Epistle.) With respect to the formula yai-

ew, scil. λέγει, bids, this is common both in the
Scriptural (see Acts 15, 23. 23, 26. 2 Joh. 11.) and
the Classical writers. On its use see Benson,

2—4, Orditur epistole argumentum, a commendanda Christianis
in Asia minore dispersis, iisque doctorum Judaizantium et novatu-
rientium insidiis undique perturbatis, malorum patientid, et in-
concuss& in religione tenenda constantia. Cui quidem cohortationi
ai {ον munit premittenda y. 2, sententia hac: Πᾶσαν χαρὰν, 86.
(Pott.

2. πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε. Wets, renders the πᾶσαν χαρὰν
merum gaudium; Pott, impense letandi materiam. Compare Col.

JAMES, CHAP. I. O75

1, 9—11..1 Tim. 1,15 ἃ 16. Of this use of πᾶς and omnis ex-
amples are adduced by Wets. and Hottinger. Carpz., however,
takes the πᾶσαν for πάντως. But though this comes to the same
thing, yet it seems less exact. Here, of course, there is an ellipsis
of εἶναι and τοῦτο. Ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, ‘© when
ye fall into various trials and tribulations.” Πειρασμ. is used to
denote afflictions of every kind, but especially those which most of
all try our religious faith, as persecution for religion’s sake. Ro-
senm., however, thinks that St. James especially adverts to the trials
of poverty to which the Christians who came as exiles to Antioch,
were exposed ; since from this passage on the enduring of adversity
he, at ver. 9. seqq. and 2, 1. glides to that of the arrogance of the
wealthy. But this seems not a very strong argument; and the
speculations of Noesselt and others may very well be dispensed
with. On the subject of temptation in genéral, see the notes of
Whitby and Mackn., or Slade. On the use here of περιπίπτειν,
Pott dilates much. It may be sufficient to say, that the term is used
of what is evil (whence it has after it νόσῳ, συμφοραῖς, ἀτυχήμασι,
&c.; as may be seen by Wetstein’s examples) ; and is synonymous
with éurimre ἐν, or eis; though a stronger expression.

3. γινώσκοντες ὅτι--οὑπομονὴν, knowing (i. e. mindful) that this
exercise or trial of your faith produceth constancy. It is observed
by Rosenm.: ‘‘Sicuti auri experimentum (δοκιμον) ignis est, ita
Christianam fidem explorat, quicquid ei materiam prebet ad experi-
menta sui danda; quo pertinent calamitates. Fides autem sic ex-
plorata efficit constantiam, ὑπομονήν. Sienim periculum prospereé
cedat, vires ad bonum ipso usu augentur et confirmantur. Vitio
tamen hominum sepe accidit, ut res adverse exitum habeant per-
niciosum.” The jou. must be understood with the extent of sig-
nification assigned to zecpac. just before.

4. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, “ But let constancy pro-
duce her perfect effect,” i. 6. ‘“‘show itself by your works ;” for to
these St. James every where exhorts. The words following are
(as Noesselt remarks) exegetical of the τέλειον, “that ye may be
entire and perfect Christians, in nothing deficient.” And so Ben-
son, Rosenm., and many eminent Commentators. Others, how-
ever, as Luther and Carpz., render: “ Let your constancy endure
unto the end; i.e. as long as you live.” Thus (as Rosenm. observes)
the ἔργον τέλειον would be an ἀποτετέλεσμα; and therefore would be
an agonistical allusion. On perseverance to the end, see 2 Tim, 4,
7. This, however, seems not so naturala sense. On the force
of ἔργον consult the note of Kypke.

The following expressions τέλειοι, ὁλόκληροι, and ἐν μηδενὶ λει-
πόμενοι, are synonymous (see Tromm. Concord.) but accumulated
(as Pott says), propter studium dicendi ; the third being exegetical of
the first two, and perhaps containing a metaphor taken from the
race course. Storr thinks there is an agonistical allusion. I would
compare a similar passage of Isocrat. Panathen. τούτους φημὶ καὶ
φρονίμους εἶναι, καὶ τελείους ἄνδρας, καὶ πάσας ἔχειν τὰς ἀρετὰς.
TeX. signifies complete, perfect. ᾿Ὁλόκληρος properly denotes one

576 JAMES, CHAP. I.

who is heir to the whole estate, entirely heir; but it was commonly
used to express what is entire, complete, and perfect. The most
eminent critics, as Krebs, Loesn., Morus, and Pott recognise an
allusion to the Jewish sacrifices, in which the victims were required
to be red. ὁλοκλ., and ἀμωμ. See a passage of Philo cited by Hot-
tinger.

5. εἰ δὲ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας. On the sense of
this very extensive term σοφία, Commentators are
not agreed. Grot. and Rosenm. take it to denote
prudence in deciding and determining what is to be
done according to circumstances ; and this they think
is agreeable to what precedes. Others, as Carpz.,
think it must denote spiritual, or Christian wis-
dom, as shown in deeds, or as understood by teachers ;
but this is too limited, and unsuitable to the context.
The sense is (I think) best laid down by Jaspis thus:
sapientia que cernitur in eo, ut quis justa cognitione
et recta scientia instructus, de causis et de fructu
harum miseriarum rité cogitet, justum pretium rebus
externis, quarum jacturam facit, statuat, firma
fiducia, preestantiaque animi gaudeat, ut sciat, quid
in singulis rebus agendum sit, quod personis, tem-
pori, ac loco conveniat. 3,13 & 17. Est sapientia
practica. See Mackn. and Doddr. Carpz. remarks
on the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
citing the Etym. Mag. inv.: Γνώσις Σοφίας διαφέ-
ρεται. Γνώσις μὲν ἐστὶ τὸ εἰδέναι τὰ ὄντα. Σοφία de,
καὶ τὸ τὰ ὄντα γενώσκειν, καὶ τὰ γνωστὰ πράττειν.

Διἰτείτω----ἀπλῶς, “ἰοῦ him ask it of God, who
giveth (this and all good gifts) to all men abun-
dantly.” Such seems to be the true sense: though
some take 0:0. absolutely ; as Luke 15,16. Similar
sentiments are adduced from the Classical writers
by Elsner (as Plut. de Is. and Os. Πάντα μὲν, ὦ ΚΚλέα,
δεῖ τ᾽ ἀγαθὰ τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας αἰτεῖσθαι παρὰ τών bewy,
μάλιστα δὲ τῆς περὶ αὐτων ἐπιστήμης ὅσον ἐφικτὸν ἐστιν
ἀνθρώποις μετίοντες εὐχόμεθα τυγχάνειν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν

" ἐκείνων, ὡς οὐθὲν ἀνθρώπῳ λαβεῖν μεῖξον, οὐ χαρίσασθαι
θεῷ σεμνότερον ἀληθείας") and Wets., as ‘Theocrit. Id.
17, 137. ἀρετήν γε μὲν ἐκ Διὸς αἴτεν. At πᾶσιν, Com-
mentaters seem to have thought some limitation

JAMES, CHAP. I. O77

necessary. Thus Hardy subjoins: scil. pie et recté
petentibus. Rosenm., more regularly thus: κατὰ
τὴν αὐτοῦ δόσιν, dat cuique quantum et opus est ac-
cipere, Sir. 1,10. But perhaps neither subaudition
is necessary. It is simply meant that God is the
giver of that and every other perfect gift which he
imparts to all men, in various proportions according
to his own good pleasure.

The araws most interpreters render liberally. So
the Vulg. affluenter ; and the Syr., liberaliter. Ca-
pell. and Carpz. render it benigné, ex bonitate et
gratid, which (they observe) is agreeable to what
follows. Yet the best of the later interpreters (as
Pott and Rosenm.) explain it simpliciter, 1. e. non
ambitiosé, jactanter, aut (quod plerumque inter ho-
mines sit) in obliquum finem, sed mero studio bene-
ficiendi; comparing Rom. 12, 8. ἐν ἁπλότητι μετα-
διδόναι. Perhaps both the above senses may be
conjoined.

5. καὶ py ὀνειδίϑοντος. This is variously explained ;
either of reproaching men for their importunity, or
bestowing gifts in a haughty contumelious manner ;
or, not giving them at all. So Morus, Hottingen,
and Jaspis. But none of these interpretations (I
conceive) can be adopted, as being too limited.
The most natural and best founded one seems to be
that of some moderns, i. e. ‘* who does not (as men
too often do) upbraid others with the benefits con-
ferred, and make them irksome and odious by re-
iterated recapitulations.” * Such appears to be the
sense, on which we are not to seek refinements.

* Numerous parallel sentiments are adduced by Grot., Elsner,
&c. from the Classical writers, of which the most apposite are the
following. Philem. καλὼς ποιήσας ov καλῶς ὠνείδισας" ἔργον κα-
θεῖλες πλουσίου πτωχῷ λογῳ, καυχώμενος τὸ δῶρον ὃ δέδωκας φίλφῳ'
ἔργῳ, στρατηγὸς γέγονας, λόγῳ φίλος. Aristot. Rhet. 2, 6, αἰσχρὰ
--καὶ ἃ ἐποίησεν, dveidizew" μικροψυχίας γὰρ πάντα καὶ ταπεινό-
τητος σημεῖα. Ver. Andr. 1, 1, 16. Istheee commemoratio quasi
exprobratio est immemoris beneficii. Plut. de Adul. p. 64. ‘A
πᾶσα μὲν yap ὀνειδιξομένη χάρις ἐπαχθὴς καὶ ἄχαρις. Liv, 5, 44,

VOL. VIII. 2P

ΕΣ

578 JAMES, CHAP. I.

5. καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. This requires the limitation,
*¢ if he ask it,” or, ‘‘ so far as may be necessary for the
purpose in view, and according to the good pleasure
of God.”

6. αἰτείτω----διακρινόμενος. “Ev πίστει, ‘a full as-
surance,” viz. of God’s power to give it, his benig-
nity, and his willingness to bestow it, as far as shall
be necessary, and for his real good. It is well ob-
served by Whitby, that ‘‘ hence it appears, that this
wisdom depends not on our own skill and strength
nor can it be attained without divine assistance.”
The μηδὲν (sub. κατὰ) διακρ. is exegetical, “ not
doubting of the power or benevolence, &c. of the
Deity.”” Rosenm. rightly remarks: ‘Sermo est de
precibus pro impetrandis bonis ad animi salutem
pertinentibus.” The force of διακριν. has been ex-
plained at Matt. 21, 21. Mark 11, 23. and Acts 10,
20. & 11, 12. compared with Judg. 22. and Sir. 7,
10. ‘The sense is here aptly illustrated by a com-
parison to a wave of the sea. There is the same
metaphor in our verb ¢o waver.

6. κλύδωνι θαλάσσης. So κλύδων ὕδατος, which is
most frequently used without the adjunct. The
two terms ave. and ῥιπ., the former of which never
occurs in the Classical writers, are nearly synony-
mous, and are equivalent to the more usual ones
κλυδωνίϑεσθαι and περιφέρεσθαι. It is obvious how
applicable this is to the mind of an unstable man,
fluctuating between hope and despair. See Pott.

7, 8. μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω. It is well remarked by Ro-
senm., that these two verses are closely connected ;
and, when digested into the usual order, will yield
this sense: ‘* Let not such a man, doubtful in mind,
and fluctuating in all his actions, think he shall ob-
tain any thing of the Lord.” ’Exkejvos is for τοιοῦτος,
Λήψεται, shall obtain. ‘The sense of δίψυχος is dis-

pro tantis pristinis populi Romani beneficiis, quanto ipsi meministis,
nec enim exprobranda apud memores sunt, gratie referende.
Campare also Thucyd. 2, 40. 5. f.

JAMES, CHAP. I. 579

cussed with unnecessary minuteness by the philolo-
gical Commentators. It is best explained by Ro-
senm. (in the words of Q. Curtius) qui nec velle nec
nolle quicquam diu potest, quemque modo concilii
peenitet, modo pcenitentie ipsius. “Ode, habits,
actions, &c. Now fluctuation in mind must produce
vacillation in action.

9—11. The Apostle now, passing from trials in general (of which
he has so far been speaking), to a particular kind of trials, exhorts
the poor not to suffer themselves to be depressed by their poverty,
and the rich not to let themselves be exalted over much by their
riches. ( Pott.)

9. καυχάσθω αὐτοῦ. The sense of these words is somewhat obscure
and uncertain. Hence the variety of interpretations. Many
moderns take ταπεινὸς in a._physical sense, as ταπεινὸς just before ;
and suppose the Apostle adverts first to the case of one reduced to
want, and then to that of one stript of his possessions, for religion’s
sake. But this is very harsh, and little agreeable to the words fol-
lowing. Pott paraphrases thus: ‘ tantum absit ut pauper egestate
animum suum infringi patiatur, ut (vel ipsa fortunarum jactura
propter religionem facta) dives potius sibi videatur, ac de divitiis
suis (verioribus, religionis beneficio sibi partis), glorietur.” And
he adds that there is a very similar passage in Prov. 13,7. 3, how-
ever, assent to the antients and carly moderns (including Rosenm.),
that ὕψει (which is for ὑψώσει) is to be understood of that spiritual
elevation to which he that humbleth himself before God, and _ faith-
fully serveth him, shall be exalted. Kavy. here denotes simply
rejoice. The sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ Let him console him-
self under the distresses and contumelies attendant on poverty, in’
the anticipation of that exaltation which he will one day:receive at
the hands of the Lord; an exaltation, indeed, of which he has in his
Christian calling ane election already a foretaste.”

In the words ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ, most recent
Commentators recognise an irony (and so Rosenm.), or an Oxymos
ron; as Jaspis, q. d. ‘* Pet him (if he will) glory in what, ffom
their instability and perishableness, might rather raise feelings of
humility.” But as ταπεινώσει must be interpreted agreeably to the
ὕψει preceding, it should seem to mean: ‘* Let him rather rejoice
in those humbling doctrines of the Gospel, whose observance can
alone save the rich man, who is encompassed with so many tempta-
tions, and whose salvation is so exceedingly difficult.” The words
following are merely illustrative of the instability of riches, and
require little explanation. It may suffice to say that χόρτος denotes
green herbage of every kind, like the Hebr.awy. The ἄνθος χόρ-
του is taken, by Hottinger, to denote the herba virens. But this
seems refining too much; nor is it agreeable to what follows, since
the two words are plainly distinguished ; and it very much detraets
from the beauty of the image, which is unfolded in the words fol-
lowing. Of this image we have an imitation in Cowper’s Task, Β 3.,

ZPg

580 JAMES, CHAP. I.

“ All flesh is grass, and all its glory fades
«¢ Like the fair flower dishevelled in the wind.”

The Future is put for the Present, or rather the Aorist, Hebraicé.
Upon the whole, it may be well to bear in mind, that there is here
an antithetical acuté dictum, and, therefore, the words are not to
be too rigourously interpreted.

11. ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὃ ἥλιος, &c. It is remarked by Pott that the expli-
cation of the imagery passes into a narration of the things; as Ps.
103, 16., and some parables of our Lord. Or, as Rosenm. says, the
Aorists are put for Presents ; and, as Pott observes, the ἀνέτειλε
καὶ ἐξήρανε may be taken as put for dvareidas ἐξήρανε, the yap for
ὅτι, like the Hebr. "3, and the συν for ἅμα συν (or rather, 1 would
remark, for ἅμα). ‘The καύσωνι is by Benson, Pott, and Rosenm.,
rightly taken, not for the ὁ ἥλιος καύσων, the meridian sun, but,
with an ellipsis of ἄνεμος, for the wind called the Simoom, which
usually blows up at sunrise. See also Chardin and Niebuhr, referred
to by Pott and Benson in loco. So Jerome, cited by Rosenm. :
< Cito flores pereunt, cito violas et crocum pestilens aura corrumpit.”
᾿Εξέπεσε, shrivels. So bprin 15. 28. Εὐπρεπεία, in the Classical
writers, has several senses. In the Scriptural ones it has simply
that of beauty. So Hesych. εὐμορφία.

The words following οὕτω---μακρανθήσεται contain the applica-
tion. ““ Soalso perisheth and wasteth away the rich man in the
midst of his goings and devices, plans and counsels ;” or, according
to Rosenmuller’s version, together with, &c., which yields a good
sense, though not so good aone as the other; for the plans of the
rich are not altogether déstroyed by their death; but there is little
authority for this signification of ἐν. Πορείαις, literally, goings,
i. 6, devices, counsels. Μαρανθήσεται, aw. A term (Pott and
Rosenm. observe), properly used of flowers, but, in accommodation
‘to the metaphor here, transferred to persons. Yet it is used by the
Classical writers in similar cases. See Wetstein’s examples, of
which the most apposite is Philo 258, 43., μήτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλούτῳ---σεμνυν-
θῆς, λογισάμενος; ὅτι καὶ ὀξεῖαν ἔχει τὴν μεταβολὴν, μαραιγνόμενα
τρόπον τινὰ, πρὶν ἀνθῆσαι βεβαίως. It is plain that the Apostle is
speaking of what is usual.

12, 18. Now, returning to the subject of ver. 2, 3
and 4., from which, from ver 5., he had made a di-
gression, St. James proceeds to treat on πειρασμοὶ in
general, and after having declared those happy who
patiently endure temptation, ver. 12., he -exhorts
Christians not to suppose (as perhaps some did) that
temptations, arising from evil concupiscence, proceed
from God, (ver. 18, 14 & 15.), to whom nothing but
good is to be attributed (ver. 16, 17 & 18.), and
especially that most precious benefit of the Christian
religion (ver. 19.). (Pott.)

The μακάριος ἀνὴρ is derived from the Hebr. WW

JAMES, CHAP. I. 581

ON of Ps. 1, 1.; a common form, Pott observes, of
introducing moral precepts (as Matt. 5.), the con-
trary to which is οὐαὶ τῴ ἀνθρώπῳ, &c. It is strange
he should not have compared the Horatian ‘ Bea-
tus ille qui procul negotiis,” &c. “Os ὑπομένει πειρασ-
μὸν, “who is called upon to endure trials and adver-
sities ; so called, as serving to put men’s constancy
to the proof. See Matt. 5,10 & 11., Hebr. 12, 7.,
&ce. The ὑπομένει Pott interprets, “ courageously
endures ;” and he supposes an agonistical metaphor.
But this is unnecessary ; since the simple sense is,
that ‘“‘ those who encounter adversity, are not there-
fore to be regarded as miserable, inasmuch as that
adversity is meant for their good in the end, serving
as an occasion for exercising their virtue; and so
giving them an opportunity of obtaining the reward;
as the Apostle suggests in the words following.

12. δόκιμος γενόμιενος ---αὐτὸν. Here there is plainly
an agonistical allusion ; and the δόκιμος γενόμιενος is
learnedly illustrated by Kypke from the δοκιμασία of
the Grecian ayaves. So Philo, p. 545. (cited by
Loesn.), ἀθληταὶ δυνάμεσι καὶ ῥώμαις καὶ εὐεξίαις σω-
μάτων μέγα φρονοῦντες, ἀνενδοίαστον νίκην ἐλπίσαντες,
ἐξαγώνιοι πολλάκις ἐγένοντο μιὴ δοκιμιασθέντες, ἢ κατα-
στάντες εἰς τὸν ἀγώνα, ἡττήθησαν. By στέφανον τῆς wis
is meant, the reward of (eternal) life and happiness ;
so that even loss of life (if it have to be endured for
religion’s sake) will be abundantly repaid by a happy
resurrection to another and an immortal one. Τοῖς
ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν. An usual periphrasis (as Pott
remarks) for pious worshippers of God.

13,14. The Apostle, having said so much about
the benefit of temptation, guards them against the
mistake of making God the author of sin, or ascribing
temptations to iim, as that imports an impelling men
to sin. Such, he says, proceed not from God, but
from the lusts of men, which, if yielded to, will bring
death rather than a crown of life. And, therefore,
though trials may be ascribed to God, yet tempta-
tions in the bad sense must not. Sin and death

582 JAMES, CHAP. I.

proceed from the lusts and wickedness of men; but
God is not the author of evil, but, like the sun, is an
universal benefactor, and the author of that is good ;
nay even exceeds that luminary, as not being subject
to change or variation. (Benson.)

Πειράϑ. is here used in the bad sense, namely, to be instigated to
evil. Many, it seems, there were who excused their sins, and
especially their defection from the faith, by alleging the perils which
accompanied it, and sought refuge in the doctrine of necessity. In
opposition, then, to this baneful errur, the Apostle assures them that
adversities are not sent by God, to make men worse, but to make
them better. Some Commentators think the Apostle has here
reference to the Szmoniani, who made God the author of sin, Bp.
Bull fixes on the Pharisees. But it is judiciously observed by
Carpz.: ‘ Ignorantur hi quos Apostolus intellexerit, et conjiciuntur
frustra. In depravaté natura omnium hominum heret sententia,
cui obviam it Jacobus. Is a Deo, ἀπειράστῳ κακῶν, immuni a
malo, removet culpam, et in cupiditates perversas conjicit.’ The
Heathens also, as may be seen by Wetstein’s citations, held this
doctrine.

13.6 γὰρ Θεὸς ἀπειραστός---οὐδένα. “* Now God (anno-
tates Rosenm.) wishes men to be as He is; andas He
is not tempted by sin, so neither does he tempt any to
sin.” See Sir. 15, 11., seqq. Upon this whole sub-
ject of temptation consult Benson.

14. ἕκαστος δὲ---δελεαϑόμενος, ‘* But whosoever is
tempted, and impelled to sin, is hurried away and
enticed by his own lusts.” ᾿Επιθυμία has here the
bad sense of evil concupiscence, a desire for things
which ought not to be sought after, or, not to that
degree. Rosenm. paraphrases: “when we are
seduced to evil, God is not the cause: but it is, that
we love the pleasures of this life, and this life itself,
more than we ought.’ And he cites Cicero in
Pisonem: Sua quemque fraus, suum facinus, suum
scelus—de sanitate ac mente deturbat.* ‘There is
(he observes) a Classical elegance in the phrase

* Tadd Aischin. c. T. p. 27, 5., μὴ γὰρ οἴεσθε ras τῶν ἀδικημάτων
7 > \ ~ > ’ > Li Es ey , > , ,ὔ
ἄρχας ἀπὸ Θεῶν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγείας γίνεσθαι---
ἀλλ᾽ αἱ προπετεῖς τοῦ σώματος ἡδοναὶ καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ἱκανὸν ἡγεῖσ-
θαι, ταῦτα πληροῖ τὰ ληστηρία, ταῦτ᾽ εἰς τὸν ἐπακροκέλητα ἐμ-
βιβάξει, x. τ. A. And, alittle after: οὐ γὰρ τὴν αἰσχύνην, οὐδ᾽
“" ΄ , > ΝΥ AG) -: ΄ > is
ἅ πείσονται λογίξονται; ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς κατορθώσαντες εὐφρανθήσον-
ται, τούτοις κεκλήνται.

JAMES, CHAP. I. 583

ἐξέλκυσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας. Examples of it are
adduced by the Philologists. The term ἐξελκύω is
used with nouns denoting pleasure, habit, custom,
ἅς. Rosenm. compares from Virgil: Trahit sua
quemque voluptas. In δελεάφ, there is a metaphor
taken from fishing, common in the Classical writers,
from whom Wets. adduces many examples.* It is
truly remarked by the Commentators that the image
(which is not unlike one in Milton) is derived a mere-
trice. (See Carpz.)

15. cira—dapapriav. Now evil concupiscence con-
ceives, when we foster it in our minds, and take plea-
sure init. For then does actually follow meditated
sin, as parturition follows conception. (Rosenm.)
Συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει is for συλλαβάνει καὶ τίκτει. On
the term συλλαμβ., 561]. ἐν γαστρὶ, see Luke 1, 31.,
and 2, 21. Of τίκτειν, in this sense, there are nu-
merous examples in the Classical writers. ᾿Αποτελεσ-
θεῖσα, when fully accomplished, perpetrated. So Po-
lyb., ἀσέβημα ἀπετέλεσαν.

he ἁμαρτία must be taken in a general sense:
and the best commentary on the ἀποκύει θάνατον, is
Rom. 6, 21., ὧν τὸ τέλος θάνατος, i. 6. death, punish-
ment, and misery. Pott compares Philo, p. 147 5.
Ἡ φύσις πρὸς γένεσιν πραγμάτων ὥρισεν ev ψυχῇ δύναμιν,
OF ἧς κυοφορεῖ, καὶ ὠδινεῖ καὶ ἀποτίκτει πολλὰ διανοία"
τῶν δὲ ἀποκυομένων---τὰ δήλεα---ἐστι κακία καὶ πάθος. I
add Aischyl. Pers. 826., ὕβρις γὰρ ἐξανθοῦσα ἐκάρπωσε
στάχυν ἔΑτης, ὅθεν πάγκλαυτον ἐξαμᾷ θέρος. Laonid.
Alex. ap. Brunck Anal. 2, 190., ὕμεας ἀφροσύνη μαιώ-
σατο, τόλμα δ᾽ ἔτικτε καὶ ἀφροσύνην. Plato Epist. 3.,
βλάβην ἡδονὴ----γεννῷ ---δυσμιαθίαν καὶ λήθην καὶ ἀφροσύ-
yay καὶ ὕβριν τίκτει.

16, 17. These verses are closely connected together, and contain
perhaps an inference from the preceding. The erroneous doctrine

in question the Apostle opposes, by showing that so far is God from
being the author of evil, or men being impelled by him to sin, that

* The most apposite are the fullowing, Athen. 308, 1., ἀνελκυσ-
θεὶς δὲ οὐ δελεάθεται οὔτε σαρκὶ οὔτε ἄλλῳ τινι ἔμψυχον. Herod.
2, 70., Cic. de Senect. 13., Divine enim Plato escam malorum volup-
tatem appellat, quod ea videlicet homines capiantur, ut hamo pisces,
See more in Loesn., Schoettg., Alberti, and Carpz.

584 JAMES, CHAP. I.

He is the only source of good. Now this he introduces with a for-
mula employed by the sacred writers, when they wish to recall men
from grievous though unperceived error ; as in 1 Cor. 6, 9. 15, 33.
Gal. 6, 7., &c., where see the notes.

17. πᾶσα δόσις---τέλειον. The πᾶσα Raphel, Rosenm., and Pott,
render mera (as a little before). But it is unnecessary to resort to
such asense. TeX. is a somewhat stronger term than ἀγαθὴ. ’Avw-
θὲν is for οὐρανόθεν (as Acts 14,7.) So the Heb. bynn. The
term, of course, denotes God in Heaven; but this is expressed by the
Apostle just after. Ἔστι κατ. So most Critics point. But others
take the ἐστι κατ. for καταβαίνει. So the Vulg. Antiq. and Syr.,
James 3, 15. Joh. 1,33. And this is more agreeable to the usage
of the New Testament in mentioning what is customary. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ
πατρὸς τῶν φώτων. It is plain that πατὴρ is here, like the corre-
sponding words in most languages, put for author, producer: but it
is not so easy to settle the sense of φώτων. Heinr. takes it of the
Urim and Thunmim. Wolf, Mede, Schleus , and Reich, of every
sort of perfection and felicity. Grot., of spiritual gifts, Benson,
of revelation. Some recent Commentators, as Semler, Teller, Storr,
Rosenm., Meyer, Hottinger, Pott, &c., understand it of the sun,
moon, and stars (nay, even the whole universe), like the Heb, 1x.
And this, they think, is required by what follows. See more in Pott
and Slade. Upon the whole, this last interpretation may deserve the
preference : but it is not impossible that a metaphorical as well as
a physical sense is here intended.

The words following are, by Wets. and the best Commentators,
thought to contain an astronomical allusion; q. d. ““ In Him is
not, as in the sun (the greatest of corporeal lights), any παραλλαγὴ;
τροπὴ, OY ἀποσκίασμα ; all of these are astronomical terms, on which
see Wets. and Schleus. Lex. But perhaps this may be tuo fanciful
and far-fetched: and I am inclined to think, with Rosenm., that
παραλλαγὴ signifies any change by turns ; and the τροπὴ is synony-
mous ; and the τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα signifies the least sort of turning.

The doctrine of this verse brings to mind the etymology of the
term by which the Northern nations designate the Supreme Being,
and which is derived from the adjective good.

18. βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγω ἀληθείας. On
the sense of βουληθεὶς Commentators differ in opinion.
Wets. renders it, ‘ sapientissimo atque optimo con-
silio.” But this signification is devoid of authority.
Others render, “ sua sponte et ultra, nullis meritis
nostris permotus.” But such a sense cannot fairly
be elicited from the words. I prefer, with Benson,
Mich., Carpzov, Mackn., and Rosenm., to interpret
it, sua sponte, benignitate mentis, pro gratia et be-
nevolentia sua. Perhaps the above senses may be
conjoined. Carpzov aptly compares Eph. 1, 5. κατὰ

JAMES, CHAP. I. 585

τὴν εὐδοκίαν θελήματος αὐτοῦ. See his examples of
βούλομαι to denote liking and desire.

It is well observed, by Benson and Mackn., that
‘“‘ we have here the genealogy of righteousness. All
the righteous deeds which men perform proceed
from their renewed nature. ‘Their nature is renewed
by the power of truth (by the truths of the Gospel
through the operation of the Spirit), and God is the
prime mover in the whole.”

The ἀπεκύησεν (i.e. ἀναγενν.) has reference to our
spiritual regeneration by the Gospel to eternal life ;
with an allusion (as Hardy observes) to our adoption,
on which see Joh. 1, 12 & 13. and 1 Joh. 5, 18.
“Now the change (observes Mackn.) which God
produces in men’s dispositions and actions, by the
truths of the Gospel impressed on their minds, is so
great, that it may be called a begetting or creating
them anew.”

By the λόγῳ ἀληθείας is meant the Gospel; as
1 Pet. 1, 23. So Jaspis, whom see.

18. εἰς τὸ---κτισμιάτων.

The term ἀπαρχὴ denotes, properly, the first portion taken of any
thing ; and since that was usually the portion appropriated to show=
ing honour to man, or reverence to God (see Num. 13, 12. Deut. 21,
17. and Gen, 49, 3.), so it came to mean the first of any thing. The
sense assigned by Bengel, Mackn., Rosenm., and Pott, is as follows:
““ ut simus primiac precipui omnium mortalium.” They refer to
the Schol. Medic. and to the Schol. on Eurip. Or. 96. Thus it will
denote the Jews: and Slade thinks the Apostle meant to remind his
Jewish brethren that they were the peculiar people of God whom he
had chosen as instruments of preserving the true religion ἀπὸ τῶν
αἰώνων, and who were especially and primarily called to embrace
and to promulgate the benefits of the Gospel. Luke 24, 47. Rom.
11, 16. Eph. 1, 12. 2 Thess. 2,13. In this view, therefore, they
might be truly and emphatically denominated. the first fruits of
creation, i. e. of all those who should be ultimately made partakers
of the blessings of Divine revelation.” Others, as Doddr., Noesselt,
and Jaspis, think the sense is, that they should be first numbered
among the congregation. See Rom. 16, 5.

19, 20. ὥστε---ὀργὴν.

The ὥστε is for διὸ or διὰ τοῦτο, “such being the case ; since, by
the true doctrine, we have become such as to be numbered with the
most precicus of God’s creatures, we ought with alacrity to learn
this salutary doctrine, and so to learn that we may be reformed and

586 JAMES, CHAP. I.

made better men.” This position, that the Gospel ought not only
to be learned, but practised, the Apostle now especially dwells on up
to the end of the second chapter. (Storr and Rosenm.) It is re-
marked, by Carpzov, that the Apostle takes occasion from what has
been hitherto said specially, to give a general admonition.

The best Commentators are agreed that ταχὺς eis τὸ ἀκοῦσαι
(with which they compare Sir. 5, 11. γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει) sig-
nifies, hear the word of truth just mentioned, namely the Gospel.
And they render λαλῆσαι teach; a signification elsewhere found.
“* Now it was (Benson observes) the temper of the Jews to be very im-
patient in hearing others, even when speaking on religious subjects ;
and yet very apt to assume authority to themselves, and to set up
for teachers.” And such, indeed, they have been in all ages. This
interpretation, however, seems harsh. It should rather appear that
the Apostle has in view discussions and disputations upon points of
doctrine.*

The ὀργὴν is usually rendered wrath, by which Benson understands
resentment against God as the author of our trials and afflictions.
But this seems not agreeable to what follows. I therefore prefer,
with Carpzov, Rosenm., and Pott, to take it to denote an impatient,
hot-headed spirit, immoderate fervour in discussing points of religious
doctrine. But I cannot agree, with some eminent recent Commen-
tators, that teachers only are meant ; and that this admonition is
intended to check their excessive zeal. It should rather appear to
be meant for those who set up for teachers, and were too pragma-
tical and dogmatising : errors likely enough to arise under the pre-
sent circumstances. This sense of ὀργὴ is frequent in the best wri-
ters, especially Thucydides.

Many examples of similar antithesis between ταχὺς and βραδὺς
are adduced by Wets.; and I had myself collected not a few: but it
is unnecessary to introduce any.

20. ὀργὴ γὰρ---κατεργάξεται. The Commentatators above men-
tioned here explain: ‘‘ an angry man does not act agreeably to the
precepts of religion, and therefore cannot teach:’’ which is very true,
but not (I think) the truth intended by the Apostle, who seems to
have meant to say, that such a vehement, intemperate, intolerant,
and disputatious a spirit was not calculated to promote the cause of
true religion. And this is nearly the sense assigned by Whitby,
Doddr., and Mackn. The subject is well illustrated by Benson.

21. διὸ amobeuevoi—xakias. The sense of this and

* On this subject the Philological Commentators supply us with
abundance of Classical illustrations. The rule of Pythagoras will
readily occur: but whether the Apostle had it in view is very doubt-
ful. It is observed, by Benson, that the antient philosophers have
taken notice, “ that men have two ears, and but one tongue, that
they should hear more than they speak. And likewise, that the ears
are always open, ever ready to receive instruction; but the tongue
is surrounded with a double row of teeth, to hedge it in, and keep it
within proper bounds.”

JAMES, CHAP. I. 587

the following verses depends upon that of the pre-
ceding. According to the interpretation above
adopted, the furagiay will not denote vice and im-
morality (as most Interpreters explain it), but be
taken for βλασφημίαν and αἰσχρολογίαν, 1. e. such ill
language as intemperate disputation usually engen-
ders. And the περισσ. κακίας is not ill explained by
Rosenm. nimia morositas. I should, however, prefer
petulantia : for that teachers are not here especially
meant is plain from the following words ἐν πραὔτητι
δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον, of which the sense is:
“ receive and entertain with a meek and mild spirit,
and not with a violent and intemperate one, that
engrafted word which is able (and is meant) to save
your souls, (not to supply matter for mere animal and
carnal contention).” The ἔμφυτος λόγος is referred,
by the Commentators, to that figure by which the
Gospel committed to the mind is compared to seed
sown in the ground. It is opposed, Carpzov ob-
serves, to instruction which is not retained in the
memory, but merely strikes the ears, and takes no
root in the mind.” ‘There seems also an allusion to
what went before, namely, λόγος ἀληθείας ὦ ἀπεκύησεν
ὁ Πατήρ. The Apostle (I conceive) means to hint
that we are the more bound to use the Gospel for
the purpose it was intended to serve, since it is an
éudutos λόγος, one not natural to the human heart,
but implanted there for the most benevolent ends.
I would compare Julian de Regno (speaking of the
works of Plato) λόγοι καὶ θρέψαι ψυχὴν ξὺν ἡδονῇ καὶ
καθάραι δύναται.

22, γίνεσθε δὲ---ἑαυτοὺς. ΙΠοιήτης, in the Classical
writers, signifies the maker or author of any thing.
It here denotes, emphatically, one who performs and
puts in practice the injunctions of the Gospel, and
does not rest content with hearing them only. For
it is not sufficient, nor indeed of any avail, for aman
to know the truth, if he do not obey and follow it in
his life and conduct.

Then is suggested a reason for this; namely, that

588 JAMES, CHAP. I.

by being barely hearers, they will but deceive them-
selves, and not attain the expected reward. See ver.
26 & 27. and Matt. 7, 21. Such, I conceive, is the
sense: though most Commentators take the words
to advert to the case of the hypocrite. But the hy-
pocrite cannot be said to deceive himself; though
he may deceive others: and as the subject is the ne-
cessity of practice rather than theory, the former
interpretation seems preferable. :

The Philological Commentators, as Elsn., Munthe,
and others, compare similar sentiments in the Clas-
sical. Thus Porphyr. de Abstin. p. 99. δι’ ἔργων
ἡμῖν ἡ σωτηρία, οὐ δι’ ἀκροάσεως λόγων φιλῆς. Seneca,
Ep. 108 & 75. See more in Pott.

23, 24. ἔοικεν---ἐσόπτρῳ. *Avdgi (which answers to
the Heb. Ὁ) is for τινι, any one, of either sex.
Κατανοίειν here signifies to contemplate, behold. To
πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως. The τῆς γενέσεως is thought,
by some, a Hebrew pleonasm. | And thus it is omit-
ted by the Syr. But it seems better, with Grot. and
Rosenm., to take it for γνήσιον, real, natural. Thus
the πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως is equivalent to τὴν εἰκόνα
τοῦ προσώπου ὁμοίαν ; asin Artemid. On. &, 7. κατοπ-
τρίφεσθαι δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνα ὁμοίαν ἐν κα-
τόπτρῳ ἄγαθον, &c. ‘The καταν. is, by Pott and
Rosenm., rightly taken of a hasty, casual, and tran-
sient glance. Pott paraphrases thus: ‘ formam
vultas nativam transeundo animadvertit, suppl. non
item maculas vultui haud ἐκ γενέσεως insitas, sed
propria culpa adspersas, ad quas animadvertendas
παρακύψει v. 25. sive accuratiori vultis exploratione
opus erat.” So also Mackn. But this seems too
far-fetched; and I agree with Hamm. and Slade,
that it only refers to a transient, casual, and careless
glance. See Slade in loc. The κατανόησε---ἦν, Ro-
senm. observes, is for κατανοήσας yap ἑαυτὸν, καὶ
ἀπελθὼν, εὐθέως ἐπιλανθάνεται ὁποῖος ἦν, 1. 6. “ He who
takes only a transient glance at his image, sees not
any dirt on his visage, and so neglects to wipe it off.”
See a similar passage in Philostr. V. Ap. 8, 26. p. 367.

JAMES, CHAP. 1. 589

25. ὁ δὲ παρακύψας---παραμείνας.

Παρακύπτειν plainly signifies to stoop down by any thing in order
to examine it; and, in a general way, to attentively consider. - It is
not, however, so easy to determine the sense of νόμον τῆς ἐλευθερίας,
which is variously explained. By Grot., Wells, Benson, and Mich.,
it is understood of deliverance from the ceremonial law, ‘* The law
of God (say they), as it subsists in the Gospel, is called perfect, on
account of its superiority to the law of Moses, and is here compared
toa mirror, because it shows every man the temper and disposition
of his mind, and what is its complexion and colour, just as a mirror
shews him the features and colour of his face. And it is called a
law of liberty, 1st, Because it delivers men from the slavery of their
lusts ; 2dly, Because it hath freed the Jews from the yoke of Moses,
which was a yoke of bondage ; 3dly, Because it delivers all true be-
lievers from the punishment of sin.” But γόμον has not the article ;
and the words following plainly require a far more general sense.
See Pott. Others, as Carpzov, would take éAev@epias for σωτηρίας.
** For those (says he) whom the Son freeth are indeed liberated
(Joh. 8, 36.). So that the νόμος τέλειος ὁ τῆς ἐλευθερίας is the ex-
cellent doctrine of the Gospel, which liberates us from the curse of
the law, from bondage to sin, and fear of punishment, and which
confers eternal felicity.” In nearly the same way it is explained by
Pott and Rosenm. The νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίᾳς, Rosenm. says, is that
doctrine which liberates us from the dominion of vices and lusts (as
Joh. 8, 31 & 32.), which St. James, throughout his whole Epistle,
exhorts them to guard against and avoid.” ‘This νόμος, or doctrine
(he adds), is called τέλειον, with reference to the whole as taken
conjointly, and not separately; and also, in comparison with the
imperfection of the Mosaic Law. Περιμένειν signifies to persevere,
as those do who survey their faces for the purpose of decoration,

25. οὗτος οὐκ ἀκροατὴς---ἔσται. He who forgets not
what he has learnt, but does it, shall obtain this free-
dom which the Gospel promises.” The genitive
ἐπιλησμονῆς 15 for the adjective ἐπιλήσμων. “Egyou.
The whole system of works is here considered as one,
i.e. the doing the will of God. See Wells. The
repetition of οὗτος has great energy. Otros μακάριος.
Carpzoy thinks there is an allusion to Ps. 82, Ἔν τῇ
ποιήσει αὐτοὺ, Sub. τοῦ νόμου, on account of (2) what
he does, his obedience to the Gospel, his ἔργον.

26. ef τις doxei—atrod: The Apostle here brings
the charge home, plainly alluding (though with deli-
cacy) to some among them who were of this descrip-
tion. ‘The words are rightly rendered by the Vulg.:
“ Si quis putat se religiosum esse,” &c. For, as
Rosenm. remarks, ἑαυτῷ is to be understood. Here,

590 JAMES, CHAP. 1.

as before, conceit and spiritual pride is designated,
and not hypocrisy. See Carpzov. Θρῆσκος is for
θρησκευτὴς. ‘This is a rare signification, but noticed
by Hesych., who explains the term by εὐσεβὴς, δεισι-
δαίμων. Μὴ χαλιναγαγῶν γλώσσων αὐτοῦ, “ bridleth
not his tongue,”’ namely, from the linguee intempe-
rantia spoken of at ver. 19—21., where see the note.
᾿Αλλ᾽ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, sub. ἐστι (as Heb. 12, 15.
ὑστερῶν, sub. ἡ). So Carpzov, who (with Benson)
refers the words to the predicate, not the subject.
Nor need the ἀπ. be referred to χαλ., but ἀλλὰ may
be rendered sane, profecto, }28. And so in Rom.
6,5. Carpzov, however, remarks on the frequency
of the asyndeton in St. James’s style, which runs
through the whole of c. 5. The ἀπατῶν καρδίαν
αὐτοῦ is to be understood as the παραλογιϑόμενοι
ἑαυτοὺς supra, ver. 22. The metaphor in χαλιναγα-
γῶν is not unfrequent in the Classical writers. See
Wets., to whose examples I add Theodorides ap.
Brunck Anal. 2, 42. fin. Pollux, 6, 146. Philostr.
V. A. 4, 30. Eurip. Hel. 1388. & Orest. 10. Eurip.
Antiop. frag. 10. Aristoph. Ran. 838.

26. τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία, ““ is vain and ineffi-
cacious, not genuine, imaginary, and will never profit
him any thing.”

Q7. θρησκεία----πατρὶ. Having told them what is
not true religion, he bids them know what 15, and in
what it consists. ‘ True and genuine religion, such
as is acceptable to God, who is our Father (or
ἐς to God, even our Father,” or “to our God and
Father”), &c. See Carpzov. In καθαρὰ and ἀμίαντος
Rosenm. recognizes a metaphor taken from pearls,
or gems, which should be pure, and without stain.
Παρὰ τῷ Θεῴ, “in the judgment of God.” This
sense of παρὰ is frequent in the Classical writers.
At τῷ Ocw καὶ πατρὶ must be understood ἡμῶν. And
αὕτη is for τοιαύτη. It is by some thought to be
redundant ; but, in reality, like all such pronouns
demonstrative, adds to the strength of the sentence.

27. émokéerrerbai—Koopov. ‘This, Carpzov. ob-

JAMES, CHAP. I. II. 591

serves, is not meant as a complete designation of
true religion, but some specimens are adduced : so
that there seems to be an ellipsis of καὶ τὰ ὁμοία or
καὶ τὰ ἄλλα, But this appears too arbitrary. It is
better to suppose, with Grot. and Rosenm., that the
Apostle describes true religion by two of its principal
effects, beneficence and purity of life; the species
being put for the genus; as Matt. 25, 34. "Exioxerr.
signifies, in a general way, to visit for the purpose of
condolence, comfort, conversation, and personal
relief. So Sir. 4, 10. γίνου ὀρφανοῖς ὡς πατὴρ, καὶ
ἀντὶ ἀνδρὸς τῷ μητρὶ αὐτών, 1. 6. τῷ χήρᾳ. By the
κόσμου some understand the affairs of the world, its
riches, honours, and pleasures. But this savours of
monkery. ‘The best Commentators are agreed that
it signifies (as often) the men of the world, world-
lings, profane persons. From these, then, and from
society with them, and from any participation in
their vices, we are to keep ourselves pure. See 1
Joh. 2,15 & 16. 2 Pet. 2, 18—20.*

CHAP. II.

VERSE 1. μὴ ἐν προσωποληψίας ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν-
δόξης. From exhortation to benevolence and care of
the poor, the Apostle proceeds to warn them against
a practice, the opposite to Christian benevolence,
namely, that invidious preference of the rich over
the poor in their religious assemblies. But to pro-
ceed to the words themselves, some (as Mackn.,

* On this and the preceding Slade refers to Paley’s Serm. 21. I
would also refer to an equally excellent Sermon of Dr. Malthy,
vol. 1., from which I must content myself with introducing the fol-
lowing extract. “Vital religion, therefore, cannot be separated
from practical religion: and in vain will a man seem to be religious,
by the profession of faith and the observance of external ceremonies,
unless to that which is done in honour of God be superadded that
which is done for the happiness of man. Religion, then, unites
piety with benevolence; it is to do good, and to be good ; and what
may not be included in this definition is not essential to, nay, may
be repugnant to, the spirit of true religion.”

Oe ee

592 JAMES, CHAP. II.

Storr, and Rosenm.) take μὴ ἐν---δόξης interroga-
tively, and regard ἔχετε as put for ἔχειν δύνασθε, 1. 6.
‘Can you, if you be led by partiality, be accounted
as true worshippers of our Lord?” &c. This, how-
ever, is surely doing violence to the words. Almost
all other Commentators agree in regarding the μὴ as
prohibitie. At the same time, they differ in the
interpretation of the words ; and certainly the sense
is of no easy determination. Pott resolves the
phraseology thus : μὴ ἔχετε (1. 6. Katey.) τὴν προσωπο-
ληψίαν ἐν (1. 6. ἄμα σὺν) πίστει, “ do not, now you are
Christians, retain that preference of rich persons to
which you were formerly addicted.” But this can-
not be admitted as either the true construction, or
the real sense. Other interpretations I must omit.
The sense seems simply to be this: * Do not hold or
profess the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in (i.e.
with) the practice of undue respect of persons.” It
is rightly remarked, by Carpzov, that πίστις here
simply signifies “‘ the profession of the Gospel, or the
Christian religion,” (as 1 Tim. 3, 9., where see the
note), with which προσωπ. is inconsistent. See
Jaspis. ;

Tis δόξης is by some taken for τοῦ ἐνδόξου (as 2
Cor. 3, 9.); by others (as the Syr.) united with
πίστιν ; by others, again, joined with προσωπ. The
first is the most natural interpretation, and, as Carpz.
observes, there may be an allusion to his glory as
Son of God (see Joh. 1, 14. 2, 11.); but the second
may be admitted, and make no material difference in |
the sense.

Q—4. ἐὰν γὰρ---ἐσθῆτι, “ If, for instance,” &c.

Συναγωγὴν, religious assembly ; that appellation being yet, it
seems, in use; though this is the only place in the New Testament
where it occurs ; yet we have ἐπισυναγ. at Hebr. 10, 25. where see
the note. Benson thinks the Apostle makes use of the term, as
writing to Jews. Nay, Rosenm. observes (referring to Vitringa de
Syn. Vet. 1, 3,2.), that the synagogues themselves of the Jews
were sometimes dedicated to Christian worship. So also Horneius
Expos. in loc. But this must have been very rare, and only when
nearly all the congregation had become Christians; and, in the ge-
neral way the Apostle speaks, cannot be thought of. 1 agree with

JAMES, CHAP. If. 598

Carpz. in understanding solely a Christian place of worship ; though
it is probable that when such were regular edifices, their plan was
very similar to that of the synagogues ; and when, on the other hand,
they were mere rooms in private houses, the Jewish practice of pro-
viding appropriate seats for the more honourable, prevailed.

᾿Αγνὴρ, a person, whether Christian, Jew, or Heathen : for to all
access was granted ; as we learn from 1 Cor. 14, 25. Χρυσοδακτύ-
λιος, * one who wears a ring,” or rather rings ; for many such, we
find by the Philological Commentators, were worn by the rich.
Λαμπρᾷ, magnificent, splendid. Wrwyds, a poor man, whether
Christian, or ctherwise. ‘Purapa ἐσθῆτι, ‘ sordid shabby clothes,”
᾿Ἐπιβλέψητε is for ἀποβλ. (as ἐφορᾷν and suspicere, adspicere, &c.
see Palairet and Krebs), ‘‘ look at with the attention and preference
which dress will not fail to attract.” Φοροῦντα, ‘* who wears, is
dressed in.” Σὺ κάθου ὧδε καλῶς, i. 6. commode, or honorat?. Ro-
senm. cites Hlian V. H. 2, 13.; ἐν καλῷ τοῦ Θεάτρου καθῆσθαι: Ὕπο-
πόδιον, foot-stool. All this supposes a similar distinction of seats to
that prevailing in the synagogues. On the mode in which this may
be supposed to have taken place Commentators variously speculate ;
and in so doubtful a manner nothing can be determined.

4. καὶ ov διεκρίθητε---πονηρῶν ; On the construction, punctua-
tion, and sense of this verse Commentators are divided. Many,
from the Syr. downwards, take the sentence interrogatively; and
unite διεκρίθητε with the verb suspended on ἐὰν yap, ascribing to
διεκ. the sense make a distinction. But this yields an objectionable
sense; and grammatical principles forbid us to suppose an interro-
gation. Sce Slade. I therefore agree with the best recent Com-
mentators in supposing that there is none: but I can scarcely ac-
cede to the opinion of Elsner and Slade, that there is a forensic
metaphor in δίεκρ.; for that would be forced, and lite agreeable
to the context. It seems better to understand it (with Carpz.,
Storr, Pott, and Rosenm.,) of private gudgment (and consequent
preference) on wrong grounds,

4. ἐν ἑαυτοῖς is for ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν; as Mark 11, 23. It is
rightly observed by Rosenm., that κριταὶ is used of those qui dis-
cernunt, vel estimant: and that the genitive διαλ. is not of object,
but attribute, by an Hebraism ; ‘‘ Ye Judge according to false rea-
soning; ye are judges who reason ill,” namely, by judging of any
one’s worth by his apparel. In διεκρέθητε we have the passive for
the middle,

5. The Apostle now proceeds to show how unjust is

such partiality ; since those very poor persons whom
they despise, are especially dear to and accepted by
God; while the rich, whom they so highly honour,
are the very persons by whom the Christians are most
oppressed. ( Pott.) |

5. ἀκούσατε---οαὐτὸν ; “ hear and attend,” &c. The
οὐχ is interrogative. "ExaéEacha, like the Hebrew

VOL, VIII. 2Q

594 JAMES, CHAP. Ii.

Wa, signifies to especially approve and love. The
sense is noé, I conceive, (as many Commentators ex-
plain,) that God shows impartiality, by loving the
poor as well as the rich, but that he loves and ap-
proves of them more; and that, because they are
better fitted to perform the duties of Christians, and
are not entangled in the temptations which beset the
path of the rich, of the difficulty of whose salvation
our Lord so awfully speaks. It is observed by Ro-
senm., that the first argument is deduced from the
dissimilarity of God’s judgment to that of men. The
πλουσίους ἐν πίστει he renders: “if they be rich in
faith.” But this seems too arbitrary. It should ra-
ther seem that the whole sentence is elliptical; and
its sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ Does not God
view with especial approbation the poor, {the poor, I
say, in respect to this world’s goods, but) rich in the
treasures of faith and religion, even heirs of the
kingdom,” &c. Tod κόσμου, “in the sight of this
world,” or, ‘* in worldly possessions.” Πίστις here, as
often, signifies the Christian religion, the Gospel,
which is not unfrequently compared to a treasure.
At κληρ. Pott supplies ὥστε εἶναι. The other terms
have been before explained. On the Gospel’s being
first preached to the poor, see the notes of Benson,
Mackn., and Slade, which last Commentator’s re-
marks, however, on ἀγάπωσιν αὐτὸν are ill founded ;
since this is a mere formula expressive of devout
obedience. Far more judicious in his concluding
remark, that “ the Apostle only means thatthe Gospel
was preached especially to the poor; because they
generally possessed a spirit more favourable to its
reception ; and in order to show that its blessings
and privileges were universal, that the rich had no
right to that distinction and ascendancy which they
were always so ready to usurp.” .

6,°7. The first clause ὑμεῖς---πτωχόν ought to have
been thrown to ver.5. And so Cicumen. Indeed
the dé'seems to be adversative ; 4. d. ** while God,
on the one hand, so acts, ye,-on the other, despise

JAMES, CHAP. II. 595

the poor.” Ἡτιμάσατε. Aorist for present, as ex-
pressive of custom and habit. Then follows (as
Rosenm. observes) the other argument against this
undue partiality, namely, that those to whom it 18
shown are the least worthy of it. And here the in-
terrogation has great spirit. ἹΚαταδυναστεύουσιν
ὑμῶν; do they not imperiously lord it over you?”
So the terms κατακυριεύω, κατεξουσιάϑω, on which see
Schleus. Lex. in V. and N. T. Such will apply to
the rich in every age. Kal adrol—xpirnpia: for καὶ
οὐχὶ αὐτοὶ εἰσι οἱ ἐλκ. These rich are supposed by
Rosenm. to have been of the unbelieving Jews, who
accused the poorer Christians to the magistracy.
But it is best to leave the sense unlimited, and un-
derstand the rich of very sort, both Christians, Jews,
and Gentiles. ’Eax. denotes violent abduction, like
σύρειν and rapere. So our haul and hale, which are
derived from the same source.

7. οὐκ οὐτοὶ---ὑμᾶς; βλασφην., defame, speak re-
proachfully and insultingly of. Ονομα, Rosenm.
observes, is here, as often, used for person, and
Christ is obviously meant; and the καλὸν signifies
venerable, august. Thus τὸ ἐπίκληθὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς will be
for ἐξ οὗ ἐπικαλεῖσθε or ἐπικλησιν ἔχετε. The sense,
then, is, that they reject Christ as an impostor, and
heap curses on him. Others, however, as Pott, ob-
ject, that thus a person is said ἐπικαλεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τινα.
And they understand the name of Christians, which
was first given at Antioch ; rendering the τὸ ἐπὶ κλη-
θὲν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, “after whom ye are called ;” as Gen.
48,16. 1 Kings 8, 16. Is. 4, 1. It is not material
which of these interpretations be adopted ; but the
former seems the more natural, and such an hypal-
lage is very common. Carpz. and Storr, supposing
the rich here mentioned to be Christians, understand
the βλασῷ. of causing the name of Christ and his re-
ligion to be disgraced by their unworthy conduct.
But this seems too harsh.

8, 9. εἰ μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν.

Now the Jews, with undeviating hostility to Christians, showed

ea. 2

596 JAMES, CHAP. II.

an especial zeal for the Mosaic Law. To these therefore the Apos-
tle opposes the sum and bulwark of universal law ; as Christ, Matt.
22, 34. seq. and St. Paul, Gal. 5, 14. and Rom. 13, 9. (Rosenm.)
On the sense of νόμον βασιλικὸν there has been some difference of
Opinion. The best Commentators, however, are agreed that as
βασιλικὸς so often denotes what is principal and most excellent (as
in several passages cited by Wets. from Plato, Arist., Xenophon, and
Aristid., and also Philo, (the imitator of Plato,) cited by Carpz.: Ba-
σιλικώτερον οὐδὲν τῆς ἀρετῆς; SO νόμος aod. may signify that
which is most excellent, and worthy of God, or, as Doddr. explains,
** that which ought, with a kind of imperial authority to govern all
our sentiments ;” what Christ calls, Matt. 22, 39. ἐντολὴν πρώτην
kai μεγάλην ; and St. Paul, the πλήρωμα τοῦ νόμου, the primary and
most consummate precept, Rom. 13, 10. Gal. 5,14. Slade thinks
the expression may denote the supreme and indispensable obligation
of this law, and its pre-eminence above every other ; inasmuch as it
governs and includes all the duties which belong to the second
table—that law which (as Wells observes) is of principal regard with
respect to our duty to our neighbour.

Kara τὴν γραφὴν, namely, Levit. 19, 18. ‘

9 εἰ δὲ---παραβάται, “Βαΐ if we show προσωποληψία, &c. Προσ- -
ὡποληπτεῖν is aterm scarcely ever found elsewhere. See the note
on ver. 1. ‘Apapriay ἐργάξεσθε, for ἁμαρτάνειν, like the Hebr.
TTS byp. ᾿Ελεγχόμενοι, ““ since ye are convicted.” A nominativus
pendens. In the phraseology here there is something unusual.
The sense is: ‘‘ ye are convicted as transgressors of the law.” By
the νόμ. some think is meant a law, namely, that at Levit. 19. 18.
Others, with more probability, understand the royal law just men-
tioned, which (as Rosenm. observes) is violated by all undue respect
of persons, or unjust partiality.

10,11. ὅστις γὰρ---ἔνοχος. By the whole law St.
James means the Law of Moses. Yet he hints that
the same holds good of the law of the Gospel; a
truth indeed admitted by all. Here is adduced the
reason why 6 προσωπολήπτης may be rightly termed a
παοραβάτης νόμου. Whosoever (it is said) shall keep
all other precepts, but violate one, namely, one
which involves capital punishment, he is held guilty
of all, and is punished with death, the same as if he
had violated all the precepts of the law. And so the
Rabbins have: “ He who transgresses one precept,
it is as if he transgressed all.’ The transgression
here meant is deliberate and wilful transgression.
Πταίειν ἐν ἑνὶ signifies literally to stumble at, trip up,’
fall, sin, &c. At ‘vi must be understood λόγῳ “ one
article of the law.” (Rosenm ) The reason of this

JAMES, CHAP. II. 597

denunciation is, as all Commentators admit, obvious;
namely, since he who wilfully violates one, at the
same time tramples on the authority by which allare
enjoined ; and this setting at nought the authority
of the Legislator, of course, draws with it the severest
penalty he can inflict. The saying of Draco will
readily occur. For the rest it may suffice to refer
the reader to Beza, Whitby, and Grot., or Slade.
"Evoyos (from ἐνέχεσθαι), “ liable to the punishment
of ;’ as 1 Cor. 11, 27. where see the note; and see
also the note on Matt. 26, 67.

11. ὁ yap—vopov. Grot. and Rosenm. aptly cite
Salvianus: “ Si enim pro arbitrio suo servi dominis
obtemperarent, ne in iis quidem in quibus obtempe-
raverint obsequuntur. . Quando enim servus ex
Domini sui jussis ea facit tantummodo, que vult
facere, jam non dominicam voluntatem implet, sed
suam.”

12. οὕτω λαλεῖτε---κρίνεσθαι. ‘““ Always remember
ye then so to speak, and so to act, as those who are
to be judged by a law of liberty.” The only diffi-
culty here is to determine the meaning of the νόμου
ἐλευθερίας, which is explained by Carpz. as equivalent
to νόμος ἐλευθερῶν, in Opposition to νόμος κατακρίνων,
i. e. “ So speak and so act that ye may be absolved
in that divine judgment, and not be condemned.”
But I see no reason to abandon the usual interpreta-
tion, by which it is explained: the law and doctrine
which frees us both from the ceremonial law and the
tyranny of sin, and the punishment thence resulting
(see Rom. 8, &.); 4. d. “ἃ severe judgment shall he
experience who transgresses this vou. βασιλικ᾽, Διὰ
νόμου is for κατὰ νόμον. It is remarked by Rosenm.:
“Ergo sermonibus et actibus, amore plenis πίστις
νόμου ἐλευθερίας comprobanda est.” Wets. observes,
that on works the Apostle treats to the end of the
chapter; on words, c. 3. 1.

13. 7 γὰρ Kpiois—éreos, “ For judgment without
mercy (shall be) to him who hath shown no mercy
und pity.” Kpioss carries with it the idea of severe

598 JAMES, CHAP. II.

punishment; and the ἔλεος, 7, must be understood
of all the offices of humanity, love, and beneficence
to others. See Matt. 9, 13.and the note. ‘To this
the Apostle subjoins κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως, the
sense of which is obscure: but it does ποΐ (as Mr.
Slade supposes) depend upon what reading is
adopted; since κατακαυχάσθω of the Alexandrian
and two other MSS. has no semblance of truth, and
is amere emendation. Retaining then (as we ought)
the common reading, the sense will be, according to
Carpz., as follows : ‘‘ He who obeys this law, despises
judgment, and fears it not. The merciful man looks
for every thing good from his merciful Father.”
And so Rosenm.: “ Beneficence triumphs over con-
demnation, and fears it not. God will not condemn
the imitators of his own goodness.” Other virtues
(he adds) are not excluded ;. but only the force of
beneficence is set forth. Compare Rom. 13, 8—10.
Perhaps, however, the sense of the words may be as
follows: ‘‘ The merciful man may venture, with holy
confidence, to meet judgment, trusting that that vir-
tue will serve to mitigate the severity of the divine
wrath. lisn@Batt compares Demosth. adv. Med. Οὐδεὶς
γὰρ ἐστι δίκαιος τυγχάνειν ἔλεου, τῶν μήδενα ἐλεούντων,
οὐδὲ συγγνώμη, τῶν ἀσυγγνωμοόνων.

14. The Apostle now returns to the subject
treated on at 1, 22—27., namely, that a knowledge
only of religion, ‘unaccompanied with good works, will
be fruitless. This is urged in opposition to those
Christians who too much ἢ gave in to the Jewish error,
that profession of a covenanted religion was enough,
without practice. So Jerome on “Mic. 35, « Pro-
mittunt eis pacem et regna ccelestia, et dicunt: non
necesse est, ut vivas continenter et sancte, habeto
fidem quam docemus, et omnia promissa Domini
consequeris.”’

By πίστις is here meant such a faith as is not accompanied with
works, an external and historical faith, a bare profession or assent to
knowledge, like the ἀκρόασις at 1,22. See Grot. and Carpz., or
Slade. It is observed by Rosenm., that this passage would not have
been by some thought at variance with the doctrine inculcated by

JAMES, CHAP. II. 599,

St. Paul, of obtaining remission of sins without works, and solely.
by Christ, if the scope of each Apostle had been attentively con-
sidered, ‘* Paul. (continues he) teaches us at Rom 8. that our
former sins are remitted, and we received into favour (for that is the
sense there of δικαιοῦσθαι) purely by grace, before we had con-
ciliated the favour of God by any works of merit. On the other
hand, James shows that faith (in its extended sense) is not genuine,
nor truly such, unless accompanied by good works. Therefore the
Apostles are not concerned with the same persons. For with the
former ὁ νόμος is the whole Jewish law ; and those against whom
he disputes are Jews, who fancy that they alone ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, by
the observance of the Mosaic law, are to be justified, to the exclu-
sion of Pagans. So that in this whole discussion we are to keep
the ἔγρα νόμου and ἔργα ἐγαθὰ quite distinct ; since in James ἔργα
are words and deeds agreeable to the Christian religion (ver. 8.) ;
and those against whom he was writing, were Christians, who se-
parated faith from good works, and held a bare faith to be suffici-
ent. But that conduct suitable to our profession is to be maintained,
that St. Paul also teaches, Rom. 2, 13. c. 6., and in all his Epistles.
The words of St. James may be illustrated from the arts exercised
in common life, in which theory is dead, i.e. useless, if not carried
into practice. So Philo, 430. Tis ὄνησις εὐφώνου ἡσυχάξοντος, ἢ
μὴ αὔλουντος αὐλητοῦ, ἢ κιθαριστοῦ μὴ κιθαρίξοντος, ἢ συνόλως τεχ-
virov τοῦ κατὰ τὴν τέχνην μὴ ἐνεργοῦντος ; ἡ γὰρ ἄνευ πράξεως
θεωρία ψιλὴ οὐδὲν ὄφελος τοῖς ἐπιστήμοσιν. Finally, the false opi-
nion of faith only being available to salvation, was very prevalent
among the Jews, who supposed that every Israelite who only held
the profession of Judaism, would at last have part in the other
world: and this St. James refutes.” The most satisfactory infor-
mation on this interesting subject may be obtained from the ad-
mirable Dissertation of Bp. Bull, Harm. Apost., and also the
notes of Whitby and Doddr,

15, 16. ἐὰν δὲ ἀδελφὸὺς---ὄφελος ; The Apostle now
illustrates the thing by a familiar comparison, or
simile, to this purpose: “As good words do not
profit the needy to whom they are addressed, even
though accompanied with good will; so neither does
faith, destitute of good works, benefit the believer.”
(Rosenm.) Γυμνοὶ, all clothed; as Matt. 25, 81,
Λειπόμιενοι ὦσι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς. A designation
of extreme poverty, denoting those who cannot ob-
tain food for the day which is passing over their
heads. Ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνη. A common form of. fare-
well, or good-by. So Grot. Θερμαίνεσθε καὶ yopra-
Secbe. ‘These are deponent and reflected verbs, and
and import: ‘*go warm yourselves (with clothing),

600 JAMES, CHAP. II.

and satisfy yourselves with food.” They also imply
a good wish that they may have food and raiment.
Θερμ. here denotes the warm of clothing; as Job.
31, 20. Τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος. ᾿Επιτηδ. properly
governs the dative; but sometimes, as here, the
genitive; in which case it is considered as a sub-
stantive, like many neuter adjectives with the ar-
ticle. Ti τὸ ὄφελος ; scil. ἐστι, “ what is the use (of
that to him)?” or, as some explain, ‘‘ what is the
use of such a mere profession of the Christian
name?”

17. οὕτω καὶ---ἑαυτὴν, “ So also faith, of itself, and
unaccompanied by works, is dead and useless.” A
repetition, in other words, of the sentiment at ver.
14. Nexpis here signifies fruitless, ineffective, use-
less. The καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν is by the Syr., Vulg., and most
interpreters, taken to denote sola, i. 6. if it be alone.
Thus it will be pleonastic; and such redundances
are not unfrequent in St. James. So Grot. and
Carpz. Others, as Pott and Rosenm., take it to
mean per se, 127. And this seems preferable. For
other interpretations the reader is referred to Pott.
The application is obvious.

18. ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις---ἔχω. The Apostle here fur-
nishes his brethren with a dialogue, by way of argu-
ment against a man who should magnify his profes-
sion of religion, and not concern himself with its
fruit. The words from ver. 18. to ver. 24. inclusive,
are addressed by a practical to a mere professing
Christian. (Slade.)

Various explications of this passage have been propounded, which
may be seen in Pole, Wolf, Storr, Carpz., and Pott. But it is
necessary first, that the reading be settled; for some copies have
ἐκ; others, χωρὶς. The former is defended by Mill, who supposes
the sense to be as follows: ‘“‘ Shew me thy faith by thy works: It is
the only way thou eanst show it: But, as thou hast no works to
produce, thou never canst shew me thy faith: I will prove that I
have faith by my works.’ (See also Doddr., Carpz., and Mackn.,
or the abstract of their expositions in Slade.) And this will be not
unsuitable to the Apostle’s argument. But the other reading,
χωρὶς, which the E, V. follows, is far stronger in critical authority ;
and it is justly thought by the most eminent to yield a far more

JAMES, CHAP. II. 001

apt sense, So Jaspis observes: ‘‘ Hc lectio acrius urget adver-
sarium et tanquam aculeis pungit absona loquentem, atque vel ideo
quod habet longé acutiorem et concinniorem sententiam, est Jacobo
dignior.” Thus the Apostle proves the necessity of good works, by
showing the impossibility of evincing the existence of faith without
them, See Wells or Slade. So Knapp and Rosenm., after observ-
ing that the words are ironical, lay down the following sense :
‘« Shew me now the excellence of thy faith (if thou canst) without
works. I will not believe that the faith of which thou boastest, is
worthy of the name, unless thou show it me in re, and by thy
deeds.”

19. σὺ mioreveis—Gpicooves. An example is now
adduced, to confirm and illustrate the sentiment at
ver. 17., in which it was denied that faith alone (i. e.
without works) is available to salvation. Here is
taken for granted the frrsé article of belief (that
there is a God and one God only), whence depends
all faith in Christ. (Rosenm.)

19. καλώς ποιεῖς, “so far, so good.” Καὶ ¢pic-
σουσι, ‘shake and tremble while they believe;
since to them it brings no hope of salvation, but ‘a
fearful looking for of punishment, in proportion to
their iniquity.’ See Wolf and Slade.

20—22. Now is illustrated the nature of genuine faith by the
example of dbraham. Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, &e., ‘ Shall I show thee
by examples from the Scripture thou professest to believe, that my
position is true?” “ArOpwre κενὲ, sub. φρενῶν, foolish man. So
the Syr., debilis, Carpz., levis (See his note). It may mean thought-
less. Rosenm. (after Grot.) compares the sp, Raca, Matt. 5, 22.,
the μαῦρος of Christ, Matt. 23, 17 ἃ 19., and the ἀνόητος at Luke
24, 25., and Gal. 3, 1 ἃ 8. He observes, that hence we may infer
that the general use of such words is not forbidden, so much as the
employing them from hatred and passionate feelings, unaccompa-
nied with any desire to reform another; so Benson remarks, that
some of the same words, or actions, may be right, or wrong,
according to the temper of mind, or the principles, or views, from
which they proceed. ‘ Finally (continues he), when Christ and
the Apostles use these, it is generally when a whole class is desig-
nated, not an individual.” :

41, ᾿Αβραὰμ---θυσιαστήριον ; Δικαιοῦσθαι here signifies ‘ to be
approved, accepted, made meet for a reward.” See Hebr. 11, 31.,
᾿Ανενέγκας, “ when he had offered up.” For the actual preparation
so to do is always considered, both in the Scriptural and Rabbinical
writers, as a real sacrifice (see Hebr. 11, 4., and the note there).
And, as Benson observes, in all cases, what we would do, if per-
mitted, is regarded by God as if we actually did it.

602 JAMES, CHAP. II.

On the supposed discrepancy between the doctrine of St. Paul and
St. James, Rosenm. has the following remarks. ‘ St. James has
been by some thought to contradict the express words of St. Paul at
Rom. 3, 28.; and itis not improbable that some vain persons did
abuse the doctrine there taught. But suppose that there were
some of the Christians to whom James wrote who abused the words
of St. Paul on justification. Thus, St. James will not contradict ϑέ.
Paul, but only a false explanation of his doctrine. Now, St. Paul
(it must be observed), when disputing against the Judaizers, who
imagined that, by an observation of the Mosaic Law, they might
attain the reward of eternal felicity, as of debt, had said that no man,
whether Jew or Gentile, can obtain acceptance, except by Christ’s
merits, not his own. Rom. 3, 25. But those Christians against
whom St. James is disputing, were of the persuasion (as appears
from the answer of the Apostle), that a person might be made par-
taker of eternal felicity, πίστει; χωρὶς ἔργων (ἀγαθῶν) ; and not
only is salvation by Christ attained by no merit of our own, but
there is even no need of reformation and acts of piety on our part.
Now this never entered into St. Paul’s thoughts. For, he plainly
teaches, Rom. c. 6 ἃ 8., that it is the great excellence of the Chris-
tian religion, that it imparts to us what the Law could not confer,
namely, by liberating us from the dominion of depraved lusts, and
exciting in our minds a desire of heavenly things, holy feelings, and
the study of true virtue. Thus St. Paul and St. James entirely
agree. ‘The former, teaches that there is no longer any need of the
Mosaic Law in order to obtain the favour of God, and attain unto
moral reformation ; that the Christian religion alone affords us all
that is necessary to salvation ; and that of this felicity we are made
partakers by no merit of our own, but purely by grace. The latter,
teaches that faith (i.e. ageneral profession of religion, or depend-
ance. on Christ for salvation) which is unaccompanied by good
feelings and virtuous deeds, is not of the right stamp, but imaginary
and fictitious. Now each Apostle illustrates his position by the
example of Abraham, and each suitably to the subject on which he is
treating.* Thus St. James does not deny that Abraham obtained
the Divine favour by faith ; but this he denies, that his faith was
destitute of good works. Abraham rather showed his faith and reli-
ance, by preparing to offer up his only sen (by Sarah), if God had
continued to require it. See Hebr. 9, 17. (Rosenm. )

22. βλέπεις Or1—adrov, “ Thou seest that his faith was subservi-
ent unto works,” i.e. produced them. So the Syr.: “ fides ejus
auxilio fuit operibus suis.” This use of συνεργεῖν for ἐνεργεῖν or
βοηθεῖν is very uncommon; though some examples of it are
adduced from Philo, by Loesner and others. It is remarked by
Carpz. : “‘ Professio pietatis, et actio Abrahami heroica, hee duo si-

* The circumstance, Benson observes, of both Apostles fixing on
the example of Abraham, gives great confirmation to the opinion of
the antients, that St. James wrote this Epistle to rectify the mistakes
of such as had misinterpreted the Epistles of St. Paul, concerning
the doctrine of justification by faith.

JAMES, CHAP. II. 605

mul conjungebantur et sibi succurrebant, neutra extabat sola.” Καὶ
ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη; i. 6. (as Rosenm. explains) from
his works (especially his sacrifice of hisson) he showed the truth
and purity of his faith.” So τελειοῦσθαι, to be acknowledged for
perfect, 2 Cor., 12, 9. Carpz. explains: “ His religion was known
to be genuine and pure, by being abundantly productive of good
fruits.” See the sensible note of Slade.

23. καὶ ἐπληρωθη----᾿λέγουσα. Carpz. renders: “ οἱ
confirmabatur quod dictum fuerat.” For (he remarks)
the words were said before the birth of Isaac, Gen.
15, 6. ‘H ypady is put, by metonomy, for the
passage of Scripture. “Exangaiby, ““ was found to be
true ;” or, “ this commendation of his faith was con-
firmed by the event.” So Benson ap. Slade
remarks: “ It does not follow, that every passage of
Scripture was intended as a prophecy of that parti-
cular event by which it is said to be fulfilled. The
Jews understood this and the like expressions in a
great latitude, and often meant no more than that
the passage was verified, that it might be fitly
accommodated to the case in hand.” καὶ ἐκλογίσθη
αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, 1. 6. “ he was accounted worthy
of the Divine favour.” See the note on Rom. 4, 3.,
καὶ Φίλος Θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, i. e. “ he was made the friend
of God ;” calling here standing for state, by a fre-
quent Hebraism. It is plain that the Apostle has
reference to Gen. 22, 16., Is. 41, 8., 2 Chron., 20. 7.
Compare Gen. 18, 17. And Philo 281 £., has the
very expression : μὴ ἐπικαλύψω ἐγὼ ἀπὸ ᾿Αβραὰμ. tot
Φίλου pov. And though the Hebr. has Tay; yet, as
Rosenm., remarks, that word is rendered, by the
Sept., Esth. 2, 18., friend. See also Matt. 15, 2. I
would compare Liban. 30. c., ὁ ἱερεὺς 6 παρὰ τοῖς
ἀγάλμασι βεβιωκὼς, 6 τῷ Θεῴ φίλος,

24—26. Dropping the prosopopceia, the Apostle
again speaks in his own person. See the note on
ver. 21. ‘The sense of ver. 24, is thus expressed by
Rosenm.: “ Hoc ergo dicit Apostolus: Ut, qui jam
credidit, Deum habeat amicum et fautorem, non suf-
ficere fidem suam, sed, si tempus detur et occasio re-
quiritet, bona opera, qualia prestitit Abrahamus.”
On Rahab and the signification of πόρνη see the noté

604 JAMES, CHAP. II. III.

on Hebr. 11, 31. Οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη 3 “ Was
she not justified by her works, and thereby obtained
the favour of God, by being alone preserved, and
then united in marriage with an honourable person,
Booz?” Ὑποδεξαμένη, ‘ took them in (d7.);” which
implies kind treatment and hospitality. ᾿Αγγέλους,
spies. Such they were with respect to the Israelites,
as being sent to make report on their return; though
they would have been otherwise called by the citi-
zens of Jericho. ᾿ἘΕκβαλοῦσα. This verb does not
always import forcible ejection, but sometimes simply
to send forth, or away ; as Matt. 9, 25., ‘Erépa ado,
«“ς a different one from that they entered.” For she
let them down by the wall; and, as Rosenm.
supposes, pointed out another way to reach their
camp. But this is harsh and unnecessary. For
further observations on the case see the parallel
passage of Hebrews.

From all this the Apostle concludes that, as a
lifeless carcase is not a man; so the faith which does
not produce good works, is only the dead carcase of
faith, and not the genuine Christian faith,—a very
forcible simile. The sense of the words may be thus
expressed: “ For as the body, without the soul, is
dead, and useless to all the functions of human exis-
tence, so faith without works is dead,” i. e. (as
Rosenm. explains) does not produce what it ought
to produce, a continuance of the Divine favour, and
consequently eternal life. It is not vital, but useless
to edification, and so fails of eternal salvation.

CHAP. III.

VersE 1. The connection here (if any be meant)
is so uncertain, that nothing can be decided. See
however Pott.

1. μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι----ληψόμεθα. At these
words many Commentators stumble. ‘There seems
to be here a popular mode of expression for, “ Put

JAMES, CHAP. IIT. 605

away from among you that evil of πολυδιδασκαλία.᾽»
Now, the evil of many aiming to be teachers, when
Jew could be qualified, and when those few would
discharge the office, and do the good required, better
than many, is obvious.* Rosenm. explains διδασκ.
Bishops. But it rather refers to the offices of Pres-
byters and Deacons. What the Apostle here cautions
them against, was a fault into which the Jews and,
as may be seen, the Jewish Christians, were too apt
to fall, namely, of a pragmatical spirit, which aimed
at teaching others, and setting them right. He seems
also to have reference to self-appointed censors (to
which indeed Carpz. confines the sense), whose zeal
greatly exceeded their knowledge. See Benson and
Pott.

Then is subjoined the. reason: “for be ye well
assured that we (such of us as are teachers) shall
have a severer trial, and give a stricter account.”
Such (I find) is the sense assigned by Pott (whom
see); and it seems the most apt. Commentators,
however, take the κρῖμα for κατακρῖμα, condemnation,
and consequently punishment. But this requires the
subaudition of the clause: ‘‘if we fail to discharge
our office with fidelity, or are too censorious and
hard upon the failings of others.” The we is ex-
plained by Rosenm. as used per κοίνωσιν. But it is
not necessary to resort to that principle.

2. πολλὰ yap πταίομεν ἅπαντες. Here is adduced
the reason why a more severe judgment will be exer-
cised on teachers ; namely, since, as the governance
of the tongue is difficult, so it is often not attained
by them (Pott). This, however, seems very little to
the purpose. Rosenm. explains: “as in many

* I would compare a most apposite passage of Thucyd. 6, 72,,
μέγα δὲ βλάψαι καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατηγῶν καὶ τὴν πολυαρχίαν
(ἦσαν γὰρ πεντεκαίδεκα οἱ στρατηγοὶ αὑτοῖς) τῶν τε πολλῶν τὴν
ἀξύντακτον ἰιναρχίαν. Also Plut. Camill. 18. 8. f., οὐδενὸς δ᾽ ἦττον
ἐτάραττεν ἣ πολυαρχία τὰ πραττόμενα" and Joseph. 172, 45., πολυ-
apxia γὰρ πρὸς τῷ τοῖς ὀξέως τί πράττειν, ἀνάγκην ἔχουσιν; ἐμποδίον
εἶναι, καὶ βλάπτειν πέφυκε τοὺς χρωμένους.

606 JAMES, CHAP. III.

things we all offend, so there is the greater danger of
erring in the exercise of the office of teachers.” But
perhaps the Apostle here only adverts to that
secondary sense couched in the διδασκ. just before,
namely, that of censors, whom we familiarly call set
up teachers. And such (I find) is the view taken
by Benson, who paraphrases thus: “ And as we are
all liable to offend, more or less, we should be very
cautious how we censure others, or affect such a
station as will render our own faults so highly
ageravated.”

At πολλὰ must be understood κατὰ and μέρη, ‘+ in
many respects ;” or, as Pott and Rosenm. explain, it
stands for πολλώς, often. This wasa sort of common
phrase, or proverb, of which Wets. adduces several
examples. Πταίειν signifies, properly, to trip, but,
often, to offend, sin, (see Benson ap. Slade), of which
sense numerous examples are given by Wets.

2. εἴ τις ἐν λόγω οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ,
“Tf there be any man who does not even sin in
words, he will be a perfect man.” — “ But (observes
Rosenm.) the Apostle has just said that there is no
such person.” It is not, however, necessary to
rigorously to interpret the τέλειος, nor is this per-
mitted by the words following. We must under-
stand it of that comparative perfection to which good
men are permitted to attain.” So Carpz. explains : :
““ He has made a great progress in virtue.” And so
also Beausobre and Doddr. Now the man who has
attained to this, it is added, is able χαλιναγωγῆσαι
ὅλον τὸ σώμα, “to hold in subjection the other
members,” since he can govern the tongue, which is
managed with the greatest difficulty; and, therefore,
as Benson adds in his paraphrase, such an one is
fittest to instruct the ignorant, and reprove the
guilty. I would compare, from an Author ap. Suid. :
σοφίαν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ κατεψεύδετο, καὶ χαλῖνος οὐκ ἦν ἐπὶ.
τῇ γλώσσῃ.

8. ἰδοὺ, τῶν ἵππων τοὺς γαλινοὺς---μετάγομεν. τι
is now shown by an apt similitude, that oftentimes

JAMES, CHAP. ΠῚ: 607

little things stir great matters. And ver 3 & 4 seem
to be referable to ver. 5. Carpz., however, connects
this verse with the preceding thus: “ He who has a
proper controul over his tongue, can govern his
whole body, just as he who holds a horse by the
bridle, governs and turns about his whole body.”
(Rosenm.) And so Hottinger, whom see ap. Pott,
Χαλίνους---Αἄλλομεν. A common phrase in the Clas-
sical writers to denote bridling a horse. ἹΠρὸς τὸ
πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν, “that they may obey us,” i. 6.
(to use the words of Horace, cited by Rosenm.) ‘* ire
viam quam monstfat eques.”

4. καὶ τὰ macia—Povaynras, “ the barks (for πλοῖον
signifies not only a boat, but a ship, however large).”
Τηλικαῦτα, “ bulky as they are.” I would compare
Aristot. Quest. Mech. 5., μεγέθη πλοίων κίνεται (great
bulks of ships) ὑπὸ μικροῦ οἰάκος. Ὑπὸ σκληρών ἀνέμων,
* by stormy tempestuous winds, which add to the
difficulty of guiding them.” The epithet σκληρὸς, is
often used of winds (and sometimes thunder). ‘To
the examples adduced by Wets., I add Procop., p.
67., Dionys. Hal. p. 611., and Nicoph. p. 25. (Corp.
Byz.), ὁρμὴ τοῦ εὐθύνοντος, “the will of the steersman.”
A use of ὁρμὴ found in the later Historians.

4. οὕτω καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστι, καὶ μεγα-
λαυχεῖ ““ (85 ships are turned about with a compara-
tively small implement) so also the tongue, though a
little member, compared with the rest of the body,
may boast of doing great things (good or evil,
according to its use, or abuse).” So QCicumen. :
μεγάλα ἐργάϑεται, καλὰ δηλαδὴ καὶ κακὰ. And he adds:
οὐκ ἐξήπλωται δὲ οὕτως, ὅτι τοῦ συντετμιημένου λόγου μια-
θητὴς 6 ταῦτα γράφων. In this view I would compare
Anacharsis ap. Diog. Laert. 1, 105., ἐρωτηθεὶς τί
ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθὸν τε καὶ φαῦλον ; ἐφὴ, γλώσσα.
The verb μεγαλαυχέω is said by Carpz. to be coined
by the Apostle; yet it occurs not only in the Sept.,
but in the Schol. on Thucyd. 246., nay, in Isocrat.,
Lucian, Diod., Plut., and other authors, cited by:
Wets. ᾿1δοὺ, ὀλίγον πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει, Here tay

608 JAMES, CHAP. III.

signifies a heap of wood or faggots; as Thucyd. ὦ,
75. Some take it to denote forest ; which is sup-
ported by Hom. Il. a. 155., and Pind. Pyth. 3, 66.,
cited by Wets. To which I add Thucyd. 2 m7,
ἐμβαλόντες δὲ πῦρ (kindling) ἥψαν τὴν Sajnv—avrKe.
See also Thucyd. 4, 66., and Eurip. Ion. frag. 6, 2.

6. καὶ ἡ γλῶώσσα---ἡμώῶν, “And the tongue is,
like fire, the cause of numberless evils.” Ὁ κόσμος
τῆς ἀδικίας. On thesense of this phrase there has
been much needless discussion. ‘The only probable
opinion is, that it is used populariter, (as world in our
own language), 1. e. to denote a cumulus & congeries
malorum, or, rather, by metonymy, the cause of
them. On the rest see Slade. Carpz. explains
thus: “Etsi lingua est parvum membrum, ignis
tamen et ipse est; totam vitam nostram, et totum
terrarum orbem inflammare potest innumerabilibus
malis ;” quasi scriberetur τὸν κόσμον τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ἀνάπτει"
cui extinguendo non satis est mare, quod totum cir-
cumfluit orbem.

6. οὕτως ἡ γλώσσα καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν Hwy.
“It is in our members what fire is, when cast into ἃ
wood (for καθιστ. here signifies to become, be), 1. 6. it
may be compared to a devastating fire. So Rosenm.
Other modes of interpretation may be seen in Ben-
son, Semler, and Pott. Ἡ σπιλοῦσα, “ which stains,
corrupts the whole body,” as fire destroys the whole _
wood. Kal φλογίϑουσα τὸν τρόχον τῆς γενέσεως.
These words involve no little obscurity. Several ex-
positions may be seen in Wets., Kypke, Heisen, and
Pott. The most naturaland probable one seeems to
be that of Grot., Heins., Aretas, Mich., Carpz.,
Rosenm., Pott, and Schleus., namely: “It is that ~
which sets on fire and destroys the whole course of
life, from boyhood to old age, and, by raising and
nourishing hatred and enmity, renders life a scene of
misery. Γενέσεως, nature (as 1, 23.), the world, life.
Thus the course of nature is a periphrasis of life. See
more in Slade. How this is brought about it were easy
to show; but the disquisition would: be here out of

JAMES, CHAP. IIL. 609

6. καὶ φλογιϑομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. This, like many
others in the Apostle, is a dark sentence, the obscu-
rity of which may, perhaps, be ascribed to what
Carpz. somewhere calls the “ vehemens Jacobi et a
spiritu Divino immissus affectus.” ‘The most popu-
lar opinion is that of Grot., Benson, and Storr, that
the φΦλογιβομένη is put for the Future; and that it
refers to the future punishments of hell. The
Apostle is thought by most recent Critics to allude
to that common notion of the Jews, that punishment
was (by the lex talionis), literally, to be inflicted on
the very member with which any one had offended
in this life. So Sapient. 11,16. But it can scarcely
be supposed that the Apostle would condescend to
pointan admonition or a warning from so anilea
fancy, drawn from the very dregs of Pagan super-
stition. I am more inclined to think, with some
eminent moderns, that the word hedl is here put for
the Devil, and the evil passions with which he
inflames the heart of men, ‘‘ darts tempered in hell.”
See Benson and Mackn. I would compare Euthym.
1127. 5. f., τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐξέκαυσιν 6 διάβολος.

7. πᾶσα γὰρ ᾧυσις---ἀνθρωπίνη, “ΝΟΥ all animals
in nature, whether volatile, reptile, or marine, are
tamed, and have been tamed, or subjected by human
nature,” i. 6. by man. Φύσις θηρίων is said to be for
θηρία. But it rather signifies animals in nature.
Φύσις ἀνθρωπίνη plainly denotes human kind, i. 6,
man, of which expression the Philologists adduce ex-
amples. The distribution of the θηρία into the τὰ
πετεινὰ, the ἐρπετὰ, and the ἐνάλια, was common.
See Gen. 9, 2., and the note of Carpz. So Theocr.
Id. 15, 118., πάντ᾽ αὐτῷ πετεηνὰ καὶ ἐρπετὰ τᾷδε πά-
ρεντι" and Atschyl. ch. ὅ, 78., where see Blomfield.
In dapageras καὶ δεδάμασται there is great point and
energy. ‘These terins refer to all the various arts by
which noxious animals are subdued, or tamed, and
the evils from them avoided.

8. τὴν δὲ γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων dapacai,
i. 6. “it is more difficult to repress the evils arising

VOL, Vill. Ω

610 JAMES, CHAP. III.

from the abuse of the tongue, than those from the
most savage “beasts.” Such 1 believe to be the
general sense; though it is disputed among Com-
mentators whether the Apostle means one’s own
tongue, or the tongue of another. ‘The controversy,
however, is frivolous; since both may very well
have been had in view. See Benson. ᾿Ακατάσχετον
κακόν, μεστὴ ἰοῦ θανατηφόρου, ““ has evils which cannot
be effectually checked, but is full of deadly poison.”
‘There seems to be an allusion to the bite of a
venomus reptile. Carpz. observes, that the origin of
the metaphor 15 in Ps. 139,14. The term éxaracy.
is sometimes (though Wets. fails to notice.it) used
of violent disorders which cannot be stopped (for it
does not, as Benson supposes, contain a metaphor de-
rived from beasts confined within a hedge). The
various ways in which the tongue may produce this
mischief may easily be imagined.

9. ἐν αὐτῇ εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν ----γεγόνότας. Here is
an amplification of the sentiment at ver. 7 & 8. Ἔν,
a, by, with. Ἑὐλογοῦμεν, we praise, worship. ‘Toy
Θεόν καὶ πατέρα, ““ God, even our Father,” or, “ our
God and Father.” See the note, supra, 1, 27.
Karapwucda τ. a., “imprecate curses on, heap in-
vectives ;” a mixture of cursing and abuse. Spoken
per κοίνωσιν, meaning, Rosenm. thinks, certain
teachers. But it rather seems to be meant,
generally, for all those whom it might concern, who
(by the evil example-of an age prone to this vice)
were probably not afew. The yeyov. καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν
has reference to Gen. 1, 26 & 27. Carpz. states the
argument thus: ‘It is preposterous to pretend to
worship God as our Creator, and return him thanks
for the benefits conferred on some of his creatures,
and yet others of his creatures, and those made in the
image of God, to revile, curse, and heap impreca-
tions on.” |

10—12. ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στύματος--- γίνεσθαι. The dig-
_nified, gravity of this rebuke is truly admirable.
᾿Ἐξέρχεται, issues. Οὐ χρὴ, Hesych. οὐ δεῖ, q. d. “it is

JAMES, CHAP. III. 611

unsuitable to our high calling in Christ that the
noblest of God’s creatures should so abuse his facul-
ties as not even does the vilest.” See Sir. 28, 12—14.

This the Apostle then illustrates by two familiar
examples, arguing, as Grot. says, from what is
impossible in nature, what is absurd in morals. Μήτι
ἡ πηγὴ---πικρὸν. ‘The interrogative involves a strong
negation. ᾿ὈΟπῆς, the opening, whence the fountain
bubbles up. Βρύει, emits. ᾿Εκ τῆς αὐτῆς, i. 6. (as
Rosenm. explains) from the same opening, and at
the same time. At γλυκὺ and πικρὸν, must be under-
stood ὕδωρ. The μὴ δύναται---σῦκα ; is the same
with the pyri συλλέγουσιν---σῦκα ; at Matt. 7, 16.;
and many similar sentiments are adduced from the
Classical writers by Wets. and others. The meaning
of all such expressions is, that nothing can take
place contrary to the laws of nature.

The var. lect. here found in a few MSS., and
received by Griesb., is, I conceive, merely an emen-
dation of the early librarii. See Carpz. and Benson.
Slade thinks it is an improvement ; though he sus-
pects the passage to be altogether corrupt.

13. Having cautioned them against the abuse of
the tongue, the Apostle now goes further, and strikes
the very root of that evil, while he warns them against
envy and malice in their hearts; assuring them that
meekness, peace, and beneficence, proceed from
heaven ; but envy and contention are the offspring
of hell. (Benson.) The best Commentators suppose
that the admonition is especially intended for certain
conceited teachers, or persons who would be such,
and who promoted schisms and needless separations
of Christian societies.

13. τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων. The σόφος and ἐπισ-
τήμων Pott compares with the Pay Coan in Hos.
14, 10., and Deut. 1,138 & 15. 4, 6. And he ob-
serves, that there is usually this distinction between
them, that the former denotes one who knows many
things; the latter, one who can teach them to others.
See Pollux. Yet they are here nearly synonymous.

ZR

612 JAMES, CHAP. 111.

Δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν
πρᾳὕτητι σοφίας, ““ Let him show, by a right and vir-
tuous conduct the works of wisdom* (as well as
utter the words), and that of a mild wisdom.” Such
is (I conceive) the true sense. ᾿Αναστροῴης “ life and
conversation.” Ey πρᾳύτητι σοφίας is for ἐν σοφίᾳ
πραείᾳ. The ἐν is for σὺν. So Rosenm. TIpair.
denotes. not only lenity, but patience and long suf-
fering, in opposition to the proud, passionate, and
morose dictatorial temper of the teachers in question
and other self-appointed censors. Grot. compares
the Horatian ‘‘mitis sapientia Leeli.” Tadd Philostr.
V.S. p. 407. fin. τὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἢθος---κεχγώσμενον
δὲ οἷον ἠδύσμιατι, Ty πρᾳότηι" and Ρ. 528. s. 1. τὸ κατὰ
φύσιν ἐρμηνεύειν μαθὼν, ἐπεκόσμησεν αὐτὸ weaicpery,
TPOTYT.

14. εἰ δὲ ϑῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε καὶ ἐρίθειαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ
_tyov. It has been much disputed whether these
words should be read interrogatively, or not. Most
recent Commentators adopt the former, assigning
the following sense: “ Do ye not falsely boast, arro-
gating to yourselves contrary to truth, the title of
wise?” Rosenm. compares a similar pleonasm at
Rom. 9, 1. The above method is also approved by
Carpz., who read the Epistle twice through, to de-
termine how far this interrogation were consistent .
with the scope of the Apostle. Yet the common
mode of taking the passage, yields a not contemptible
sense, and is adopted by Jaspis (whom see), as also
by Bp. Hall ap. D’Oyley.

15. οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη, ‘* This
is not the wisdom which was sent by God (in the
Gospel), but earthly, animal, carnal, diabolical.”
The ἐπίγειος Rosenm. explains: non queerens cceles-
tia, sed terrena, conveniens curvis in terras animis.
On ψυχικὴ see the note on 1 Cor. 2. 14. and Jud. 19.
Δαιμονιώδης, i. e. such as we may conceive in Satan

* So Clem. Rom. ad. Cor. ὃ 3S. (cited. by Carpz.) ὁ σοφὸς ἐν-
δειενύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ ἔν ἐργοις ἀγαθοῖς.

JAMES, CHAP. III. 613

and the demons, whose wisdom is but cunning and
guile, and such as, like theirs, is full of deceit.
Carpz. thinks there is chiefly reference to the self
erected censors, who only gratified their conceit and
malice, seeking neither the honour of God, nor the
reformation of men.

16. ὅπου γὰρ---πρᾶγμα. Axaracracia, tumult, dis-
sension; as Luke 21,9. and 2Cor. 6, 5. 12, 20.,
where see the notes. Φαῦλον πρᾶγμα. This is ac-
counted an hyperbole. But the sense seems to be,
that from this source nothing but what is evil can
arise.

17. 7 δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία---ἀνυπόκριτος. Under the
description of things and qualities the Apostle
couches that of persons. Thus the ἡ ἄνωθεν σοφία
is for of ἄνωθεν σοφοὶ. Now this wisdom, it is said,
is ἀγνὴ, pure from terrestrial dross. See 1 Joh. 3, 3.
Carpz. explains: a sincere and pure heart, removed
from all evil affections, which ἄσπιλον τηρεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ
κόσμου. ΕἰἸρηνικὴ, ‘studious of peace,” in opposition
to the strife censured at ver. 15 & 16. ᾿Επιεικὴς,
gentle and candid, mild in judging of the lapses of
others, and interpreting every thing for the best,
sometimes yielding up its right, though it might
obtain it by law. Εὐπειθὴς, tractable, docile, and
accommodating. Μεστὴ ἐλέους καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθών.
These must be united, as designating ἐλ. in its most
extensive sense, 1. 6. not only of mercy, but beneft-
cence and charity; which is especially signified by
the καρπών ἀγαθών. Compare 2, 14—17. ᾿Αδιάκριτος,
without undue partiality on account of religion,
sect, or party. Carpz. explains it : ‘animis benignus
ab iracundia et fervore intemperante, personarum
etiam delectu alienus,” as opposed to the ϑῆλος, ἐρι-
θεία, and ἀκαταστασία preceding. ᾿Ανυπόκριτος, un-
dissembled, candid, free from ambition, &c.

18. καρπὸς δὲ τὴς δικαιωσύνης---εἰρήνην. From the
flexibility of the phraseology it is difficult to fx the
sense of this verse. Carpz. has minutely discussed
it; but his interpretation is too bold and arbitrary.

614 JAMES, CHAP. III. IV.

Rosenm. explains: ‘fructus autem probitatis salu-.
berrimus ab iis seritur, qui pacem colunt,”’ 1. 6.
“from the study of peace, which they cultivate,
many other virtues, as fruits, spring forth:” for as
all sorts of vices and evils of every kind arise from
envy and strife, so from the study of peace spring
all virtues and good of every kind. Δικαιωσύνη here,
as often, comprehends the whole range of buman
duty. Doddr. renders: ‘The fruit of righteousness
in peace is sown for them that make peace;” 4. d.
They who show a peaceful temper (supposing it to
proceed from right principles), may assure them-
selves that they shall reap a harvest, in a world
where righteousness flourishes in eternal peace. See
also Benson and Slade. With the καρπὸς δικαιωσύνης
I would compare Aristid. 1, 388. καρπὸς ἀρετῆς.

CHAP. IV.

From exhortation to the study of peace the
Apostle glides into reprehension of the opposite,
namely, of broils and disputes, to which too many,
especially of the teachers, or those who aimed at
being so, were probably addicted. Now these are
traced trom their fountain, even that of the lusts and
passions natural to the human heart. (Pott.)

Ver. 1. πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι ἐν ὑμῖν ; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν,
ἐκ τῶν---ὗὁμιώῶν ; :

In the πόλεμοι and μάχαι some erroneously recognise the ele-
ments of those seditions which afterwards broke oat into rebellion
against the Roman power. The words rather denote domestic
strifes, and contentions of sects and parties in the same city. (Ro-
senm.) These disputes, we may suppose, were fanned by the busy,
conceited, and perhaps ambitious and grasping persons before men-
tioned. See Noesselt and Pott, or Rosenm. Οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν, ἐκ τῶν
ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν; The ἐντ,
must be referred to the words following, with the subaudition of
δηλάδη. ‘Héor. is put metonymically to denote lusts and passions ;
since these promise pleasure to their votaries. Now such would
vary in different persons (though chiefly, as Carpz. observes, con-
sisting of pride and selfishness) ; but still there was the lust or pas-

JAMES, CHAP. IV. 615

sion warring in their members. The στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέ-
λεσιν, is explained by Rosenm. of vexing and troubling the mind.
And he cites Max. Tyr. Diss. 36. πόλεμον οὐ δημόσιον, ἀλλ᾽ idiw-
τικὸν, οὗ σιδηροφοροῦντα, οὐδὲ πυρφοροῦντα---ἀλλὰ γυμνὸν ὄπλων
ἀσίδηρον, ἄπυρον, λυμαινόμενον τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ αὐτὴν πολιορκοῦντα.
But this is paring down the sense, which has been well pointed out
by Carpz. thus: The seeds and causes of these contentions are ai
ἡδοναὶ, a word in the-New Testament almost always used in a bad
sense. ‘Theologians call it peccatum originis, the ἁμαρτία καθ᾽
ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλὸς, the seed and fomentum of all evils, So supra,
1, 14. ἴδια ἐπθυμία" and 1 Pet. 2,11. ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκικαὶ αἵτινες
στρατεύονται κατὰ τὴς ψυχῆς (a twin passage ), and also Rom. 7, 23.
βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί pov ἀντιστρατευόμενον, &c.
By the μελ. is evidently meant the depraved nature of man, ἡ σὰρξ.
The orpar. (which term is here used conformably to the military
metaphor) signifies, exert their force, excite, instigate to disturb-
ance,”’ Hottinger well renders : ‘‘ que corporis facibus inflammatz
istos in animis vestris tumultus cient.” Of πολ. and pax} in the
metaphorical sense Wets. adduces numerous examples. The ge-
neral sentiment is illustrated by Cic. de fin. (cited by Rosenm.) Ex
cupiditatibus odia, dissidia, discordia, seditiones, bella nascuntur.
To which I add Mac. Tyr. Diss. 41. p. 428. διὰ τὴς ψυχῆς νόσον ot
πολλοὶ πόλεμοι; ἃ Diss. 20, 6. μεστὰ πάντα ταῦτα πολέμου καὶ
ἀδικίας αἵ γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαι πλανῶτται πανταχοῦ, περὶ πᾶσαν γῆν καὶ
πλεονεξίας ἐπεγείρουσιν. Propert.2, 8. Hominum vitiis ad pre-
lium venitur. See also Strabo 780, 35. and Plato de Rep. 600 F.
2, 3. Now follows a more exact description of this
contest of the passions and appetites. (Pott.) ’Em-
θυμεῖτε, καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε, ‘ye desire riches, honours,
fame, pleasures,” &c. Καὶ but. Οὐκ ἔχετε (for
λαμβάνατε), acquire, obtain them not. Whitby and
Semler refer this solely to the Judaizers stirring up
civil commotions. But Rosenm. rightly accounts
that too hypothetical; and justly observes, that men
of the sort here described are found every where.
Povevere καὶ ϑηλοῦτε. Many critics, as Erasm. and
Beza, thinking Φονεύετε too strong a term, conjec-
ture d$oveire. But this would yield too weak a sense ;
and it is unsupported by any ΜΌΝ; so that not-
withstanding what Benson pleads in its favour, it
must be rejected. Neither is it necessary. We
have only to take Gov. in a similar mi/d sense to that
in which we had interpreted the πόλεμοι and μάχαι
just before; and such a sense is found in various
words both of the antient and modern languages.

x

616 JAMES, CHAP. IV.

Thus it may be explained, with Wolf, Mich., Ro-
senm., &c.: ‘‘ye are ready to murder.” I should,
however, prefer rendering it: ‘‘ ye foster a brutal

and murderous spirit ;” or, taking ya. with it: “ye
foster a murderous hatred and jealousy, to come at
your ends:” which partakes of the guilt of murder.
So 1 Joh. 3, 15. ‘‘ whosoever hateth his brother is δ᾽
murderer.”

2. οὐκ ἔχετε δὲ, διὰ τὸ μιὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς.

The sense of these words is obscure, from brevity, and may best
be expressed in a paraphrase thus: ‘* Ye attain not the pleasures
ye so vehemently long for and seek after [and no wonder, since vice
ever cheats its deluded votaries with the semblance, but never affords
the reality of pleasure], because ye do not (seriously) seek them
(where alone they can be found, in the practice of true virtue, and
in a humble dependence on the Lord of heaven and earth, the giver
of every good and perfect gift, casting all your care on Him who
careth for you).” Thus alone can disappointment, and the influence
of evil passions, be cut off, by subjecting ourselves as humble pen-
sioners on that God who waiteth to be gracious. See Matt. 6, 24.

The next words αἰτεῖτε, καὶ ov λαμβάνετε---διαπανήσητε are said
quasi per epanorthosin; q.d. ‘ Ye do, indeed, some of you ask, but
ye receive not what ye ask, because ye prefer improper petitions
(for instance), that ye may have wherewith to expend on your car-
nal appetites.” See Benson’s references, who adds, that we ought
to pray for such things only, and with such views, as are good in
themselves, and according to the will of God. See Ps. 15, 1. 33, 18.
34, 8S. 145, 18—20. Eccl. 2,6. Joh. 9, 31. 1 Joh. 3, 22. ἃ 5, 14.
The phrase δαπασᾷν ἐν is (1 think) rare. ’Es would have been
more correct. So Thucyd. 845. οἱ μὲν τὰ σώματα χείρω ἔχωσι,
δαπανῶντες ἐς τοιαῦτα ad’ ὧν ἡ ἀσθενεία ξΞυμβαίνει.

He now admonishes them to abstain from those
lusts whence come strifes and dissensions, and, in-
deed (ver. 4 & 5.), from all excessive attachment to
the things of this world. (Pott.)

4. μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες. In the interpretation of
these words Commentators (as on many other occa-
sions) run into two extremes. Some take them ina
strictly literal sense; others altogether in a figurative
one, namely, of spiritual idolatry, base worldly-min-
dedness, which would make no sacrifice for reli-
gion; and some understand, persons who were nel-
ther Christians nor Jews, and who brought disgrace
on both. See 2 Pet. 2, 1 & 2. But, assuredly, we

JAMES, CHAP. 1V. 617

must not fail to include the literal sense ; since im-
morality, in the then corrupt state of society, was
sure to be found every where, for which, alas, the
propensities of our corrupt nature furnish, in all
ages, sufficient fuel. By the ὁ κοσμὸς is meant the
corrupt part of the world, and sin generally, the love
or preference to which must imply enmity to God,
as being at variance with all his plans for the promo-
tion of human virtue, and consequently happiness.

In the words ὃς ἂν οὖν βουληθη---κοαθίσταται there is
a sort of solemn repetition of the position involved
in the preceding interrogation. And καθίσταται is
very significant.

5, 6. ἢ) δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει: LI pds φθόνον
Sei | sola

There are few passages in the New Testament that have so much,
and with so little success, exercised the Commentators as the pre-
sent. It is impossible for me to detail and review even half of the
various interpretations proposed. First, some would avoid the dif-
ficulty by supposing the passage to be corrupt, or a mere assu-
mentum foisted in from the margin, and therefore to be cancelled.
But this is too violent a method to be thought of. As little atten-
tion is due to'the conjectures that have been hazarded. One great
difficulty is, that the words to which ἡ γραφὴ λέγει belong, are not
found in Scripture (though many Commentators refer to Gen. 6,
3 ἃ 5. and 8,21. Numb. 11, 29. Prov. 21, 10.), to avoid which,
some understand then interrogatively, taking the first clause as a
general intimation of the infallibility of God; i.e. ‘* Do ye think
that the Scripture can speak falsely ? or does the spirit which dwell-
eth in us incline us to vehement envy and rage?” See Slade and
his references. The best Commentators are agreed that ἡ γραφὴ
must refer to some passage of Scripture; and Semler and Knatch-
bull fix on some Apocryphal book, as Test. Simeonis §. 3., which
treats of the baleful effects of envy. But the two passages have no-
thing common between them but the subject; and to suppose an
Apocryphal book referred to as a passage of Scripture, is not to be
thought of. As to the methods proposed by Heins. and Pott, they
are justly objected to by Rosenm, Mr, Slade treats the words πρὸς
φθόνον---χάριν as parenthetical; and he translates thus: “ Think
ye that the Scripture saith falsely (the spirit, that hath taken up his
abode in us, resisteth and subdueth the feelings of envy, and gives
us a more abundant supply of grace)? wherefore this Scripture
saith, ‘ God resisteth,” ἃς, Or thus: ‘ Does the Spirit, which has
taken up his abode in us, lust unto envy ? yea, rather, if gives us
more grace.” The latter mode is greatly preferable: indeed, the
former (founded on. a criticism of Schleusner) can by no means be

618 JAMES, CHAP. IV.

admitted, as devoid of authority, and contrary to allanalogy. One
thing seems clear, that the words in question are the words of St.
James, and that they must be divided into two clauses, each inter-
yogative. As to the expedient of a parenthesis, suggested by Mr.
Slade, it seems to be not only too arbitrary, but rather to tend to
break up the construction, and yet more obscure the sense.

Upon the whole, I see no serious objection to the first mentioned
interpretation, which is ably supported by Benson, who paraphrases
thus : ‘‘ Do you think that the Scripture speaketh in vain, or with-
out avery good reason, when it condemns such a worldly temper ?
No, that you cannot rationally suppose. Do you imagine that the
spirit of God, which dwelleth in us Christians, Jeadeth us to cove-
tousness, pride, or envy? No, by no means. On the contrary,
unto such as follow his guidance and direction, and excel in love,
humility, and moderation, as to the things of this world, he showeth
greater favour. Wherefore, the Scripture saith,” &c. But perhaps
no Commentator has so happily and so briefly expressed the sense
as the venerable Bp. Hall, ap. D’Oyley and Mant, as follows: ‘ This
the Scripture beateth upon every where; and do ye think it speaketh
thus in vain? Certainly every word thereof is to excellent purpose,
and shall be verified upon us. _Doth, then, that Spirit of God,
which we profess to have dwelling in us, lust after envy, and envy
the good things of others? Surely not: so far is He from that, as
that He giveth more grace where He hath given some already.”
The πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ seems to be a provincial expression.

The words μείξονα χάριν didwarare, by Storr, explained: “ God be-
stoweth more benefits than the world can bestow, if ye be its friends ;”’
which is, perhaps, a more regular mode of filling up the ellipsis than
that of Bp. Hall. Διὸ λέγει. The διὸ may be rendered, in which
respect, in which view, agreeably to which. Λέγει, scil. ἡ γραφὴ.
The sense, then, is: ‘* In which view, I repeat, the Scripture saith.”
So in Prov. 3, 34. I would compare Aschyl. Pers. 832—6. Blomf.
Ζεύς τοι κολαστὴς τῶν ὑπερκόπων ἄγαν Φρονημάτων ἔπεστιν, εὔθυ-᾿
vos βαρύς. Πρὸς ταῦτ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, σωφρονεῖν κεχρημένον, Πινύσκετ᾽
εὐλόγοισι νουθετήμασι λῆξαι θεοβλαβοῦνθ᾽ ὑπερκόπῳ θράσει. By
the ὑπερηφάνοις, Rosenm. understands those before termed the
friends of this world, and the enemies of God, But it rather seems to
denote the envious, self-conceited, censorious, spiritually proud per-
sons above mentioned, in the whole of the preceding Chapter, and
to this verse of the present. Now these God resisteth, by refusing
his grace to prosper their endeavours. The raz. may denote all
those who are, in every respect, obedient to his will.

7. ὑποτάγητε οὖν τῷ Θεῷ, ““ Be subject (i. e. subject.
yourselves) to God; and seek his favour by perfect
obedience, and value it before that of the world.”
᾿Αντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ. The die. is interpreted, by
many recent Commentators, the principle of moral
evil, i.e. the friendship of the world. But this is

very far-fetched. ‘There seems no reason to abandon

JAMES, CHAP. IV. O19:

the common interpretation, the Devil, Satan (see
Benson), which is required by the φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμών
following. Now to resist the Devil is to resist the
temptations to sin (especially those before men-
tioned, namely, pride, self-conceit, sensuality, &c.)
which he is permitted to raise in the hearts of men.
And the most effectual mode of resisting such temp-
tations is by persevering in the practice of virtue,
supported by those aids to human weakness which
earnest prayer may draw down from Him who
knoweth our weakness, and remembereth that we
are but dust. This latter mean is, indeed, sug-
gested by the words following ; for ἐγγίσατε may
mean, draw near in prayer, as wellas 4 yield obedience.
8. ἐγγίσατε τῷ Dew, καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν. An expres-
sion, as Benson thinks, derived from the temple
worship, in which the Priests drew nigh to the
Shechinah, (See his references.) And thus may
Christians draw nigh unto God, as a royal 2; iest-
hood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, Pets 2.0.0
8. καθαρίσατε χεῖρας, ἁμαρτωλοὶ. of ay polluted
hands (says Benson) the antient Heathens meant
hands stained with blood or murder. See Herod. 1,
35. and Schol. on Soph. Aj. 667. But the Scriptures
do not confine the phrase to freedom from murder,
but extend it to vice, or wickedness in general. Now
both the Heathens and Jews used (and still do) to
wash their hands before worship : and to this the.
Apostle seems to allude.” ‘Apagrwaci. This may
denote all those guilty of great offences, especially
the ones above alluded to, pride, cruelty, sensuality,
hypocrisy, worldly-mindedness, &c. By the δίψυχοι
many Commentators understand those who were
wavering between two opinions, i. e. neither Jews,
nor Christians, but, by their immorality, a disgrace
to both religions. Another view is taken by Car pz.
whom see, and also Pott. The expression may,
however, denote persons who, though Christians,
were wavering and halting between two opinions,
the service of God and the service of the world, who,

620 JAMES, CHAP. IV.

as we find from ver. 3., did indeed pray to God, but
prayed with hearts attached to the world, and with
tongues which sought alone the world’ s goods. Now
such as these had great occasion to purify their
hearts, and rectify such fatal misconceptions of
religion.

9. ταλαιπωρήσατε καὶ πενθήσατε mat κλάυσατε, &c.
In this verse there is a prophetical grandeur of style,
expressing the same thing in different language.
Hence the accumulation, bv climax, of terms desig-
nating sadness, intended to impress the Christians
whom he is addressing with the greater sorrow and
shame. Compare 5, 1. (Pott.)

The Apostle means to say that, by having been
guilty of such offences as those before mentioned,

ride, envy, sensuality, covetousness, &c., it is
fitting that they should not rejoice in the comforts of
the Gospel, but humble themselves by every act that

may be expressive of contrition. For, as Rosenm.
observes, it is this animt affectus that is chiefly had
in view. Weeping and mourning are to be consi-
- dered only as acts attendant on contrition, and it
is not so much these external acts, as rather the
internal feelings that are urged.” Ταλαιπωρήσατε,
“ἐ acknowledge and be deeply sensible of your miser-
able state, even amidst the world’s goods, which may
so soon fail you.” Ὁ γέλως ὑμών εἰς πένθος μετασ-
τραῷήτω, καὶ ἡ χάρα εἰς κατήφειαν, ““ Let your former
levity and sensual mirth be turned into deep peni-
tence and heavy sorrow at having offended God.”
Karygem is a strong term, used by the best authors,
from Homer to Plutarch. I would here compare
Dionys. Hal. 743, 33. Τελάτε, ἔφησεν, ἕως ἔξεστιν
ὑμήν, ἄνδρες ᾿Ῥαραντῖνοι, γελᾶτε' πολὺν γὰρ τὸν μετὰ
ταῦτα χρόνον κλαύσετε.

10. ταπεινωώθητε ἐνώπιον τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμάς.
The Apostle here suggests some motives for conso-
lation amidst the deep sorrow and repentance to
which they are called, namely, that God will, if it be
real, heartfelt, and productive of true reformation,

JAMES, CHAP. ΤΥ. 621

be the means of recommending them to the Divine
forgiveness, and raising them to the Divine favour.
For I cannot think, with some eminent Commenta-
tors, that this has reference to any temporal deliver-
ance and exaltation of the Christians within a few
years, by the removal of their persecutors, the Jews.
11, 12. The Apostle here cautions them against
censure and detraction, letting them know that it
was taking too much upon them, and was, in effect,
a censuring the Christian law, which forbade such
things; as well as displeasing to Christ, who is our
only lawgiver and judge. (Benson.) Apostolus
claudit monitiones de intempestiva censura aliorum,
quas inceperat Capite tertio, et huc usque communi-
verat rationibus: simul revocat nonnulla in memo-
riam ex superioribus. (Carpz.) |
11. μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων. Καταλαλεῖν sienifies,
properly, to talk against, and hence to calumniate,
censoriously pronounce judgment against, διαβάλλω,
kakoroyew. Such had, perhaps, been the practice of
some who, in other respects, were not unobservant of
Christian duties. Into the speculations of Commen- ἡ
tators on the persons intended, and the particulars
of the calumny, I shall not enter. ‘O καταλαλών
ἀδελφοὺ ---νόμιοον, ““ He who calumniates or speaks evil
of another, and condemns him (i.e. on account of
things not forbidden in the Gospel, as the observa-
tion of days, meats, &c.), he censures and condemns
the law, and the religion itself, of Christ, as being
imperfect.” At νόμου must be understood ἡμῶν, or
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, i.e. νόμος τέλειος τῆς ἐλευθερίας 1, 25.
(Rosenm., partly from Bens.) It is simplest to sup-
pose the article omitted, which will stand for either
of these subauditions. Carpzov thinks that by the
νόμος is meant the νόμος βασιλικὸς at 2, 8., which pro-
hibits all calumny. See 1 Pet. 2, 1. and 2 Cor. 12,
40. It is rightly remarked, by Bensonand Rosenm.,
that κρίνειν νόμον is, to declare it imperfect, by re-
garding a certain part-of Judaism as necessary to be
introduced ; and he who thinks he may lawfully

622 JAMES, CHAP. IV.

calumniate others, does, in effect, condemn that law
as defective, because it has forbidden such calumny.”
Bp. Middleton would interpret νόμου of religion, or
moral obligation in general, to which candour and
good will are essential. A true remark, but such a
sense is not permitted by the context. See Carpzov
and Slade.

The Apostle then adds yet more. Ei δὲ νόμον
κρίνεις, οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου, ἀλλὰ κριτὴς, “ thou art not
a doer of the law, but affectest to be a judge of it,
pretending to decide on what is and what is not ne-
cessary; a great presumption, which must draw
down the heavy wrath of God.”

The next words assign a strong reason why this
self-erected judgment ought not to be held upon
others. Eis ἐστιν ὃ νομοθέτης 6 δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ
ἀπόλεσαι" σὺ τίς εἶ ὃς κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον ; q.d. “ Thou
intrudest into a province that ‘is none of thine.
There is one law-giver and judge (and one only),
who is (alone) able to save (such as obey him) and
to destroy (such as disobey his commands; such
being the case), who art thou (weak and erring mor-
tal, thyself accountable to that one judge,) that
darest to wrest judgment from his hands, and exer-
cise it on another (especially for not doing what
God has not required of him).’”? By εἷς is meant
Christ. Δυνάμιενος, “ who hath the right and power ;
as Acts 4, 20. 2 Cor. 13, 8.

13—15. The Apostles now reprove those who presumed too
much on the present life, and had not a due regard to their own
frailty and mortality, and perpetual dependance on the providence
of God.

13. ἄγε νῦν, “come now.” A particle (Rosenm. says), of exhor-
tation, to be referred to 5, 1. where it is repeated. It should rather
seem to be here a form of soliciting attention ; as Is. 1, 18. καὶ
δέυτε δὴ, διελέγχθωμεν, λέγει Κύριος. So the Latin age. In the
words σήμερον καὶ αὔριον---κερδήσομεν (where some MSS. have the
subjunctive, which, however, is less proper,) the Apostle represents
the wordly-minded persons in question as saying what, perhaps, was
sometimes only the subject of their thoughts. The rebuke, how-
ever, is well pointed, ‘There is an allusion to the commercial busi-
ness in which almost all-foreign Jews were engaged, and for the
furtherance of which they had to take long journeys to distant trading

JAMES, CHAP. IV. 623

»places, as Tyre, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, ἅς,
᾿Ἐνιαυτὸν ἕνα. A certain for an uncertain, but somewhat long, pe-
riod. See Benson’s references. Ποιήσομεν, spend, sojourn; as
Acts 15, 3. 18, 23. 20, 3, where see the notes. Sothe Latin facere
dies et unnos.

14. οἵτινες οὐκ ἐπίστασθε τὸ τῆς αὔριον, i.e. literally, ‘* ye who
know not (i. e. though ye know not) the event of the morrow.”
Here must be understood πεπραγμένον or πρᾶγμα, i. 6. * whether
you shall hold your property, or be removed from all enjoyment of
it by death, or hopeless sickness.” On the uncertainty of the mor-
row numerous passages are cited by the Riulplogists which may very
well be dispensed with. See Prov. 27,1. Then, to illustrate the
uncertainty of life, the Apostle subjoins: ποία γὰρ Gov ὑμῶν;
““ For what, or how fleeting and frail, is your life! how short a span at
the most!” “Arpis yap ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς ὀλίγον φαινομένη, ἔπειτα δὲ ἀφα-
νιξομένη, ‘* Why it is a vapour, appearing for a short time, and
then vanishing away.” Tao, profecto, why. Similar comparisons
of life to a shadow are found in Ps. 102, 12. Job. 8, 4. 1 Chron.
29,15. And the Classical writers are fullof them. The conclusion
s, that we ought not to be too anxious to provide necessaries for so
short a sojourn, but we should cast ourselves on the protection of
that God on whom we wholly depend, and endeavour to seek his fa-
vour, and obtain his promises.

15. ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς" ᾿Εὰν---ἐκεῖνο. ‘hese words are closely
connected with σήμερον καὶ αὔριον (the clause rola γὰρ---ἀφανιξο-
μένη being parenthetical) ; and the sense is: ‘* instead of saying
(as yeought), If the Lord please that we live, we will do so and so.”
Now even the Heathens used expressions of this sort (of which many
examples are adauced by Wets.), though we may suppose, rather, as
common phrases and words of course; how much then is it the

duty of Christians to acknowledge and be deeply sensible of their de-
pendence on God for every thing.*

16. νῦν δὲ καυχᾶσθε ἐν ταῖς ἀλαϑονείαις, “ Whereas
now (or as things now are, as the custom too much
is), ye insolently boast.” So Jaspis: ‘ que vestra
est arrogantia, gloriamini.” And Schleus.: “ jac-
tabundi gloriamini.” And he compares 2 Macc. 15,
8. Or we may simply render: “ now ye rather ex-
ult in your boastful projects and plans.” Rosenm.
explains: ‘are tickled with the conception of the
thing, and, anticipating the pleasure of it, as if it
certain, ye break out into boasts.” See Carpz.

* Mackn. too much pares down the sense, when he says that the
Apostle does not mean that these words should always be used by
us, when we speak of our purposes respecting futurity; but that on
such occasions, the sentiment which these words egy should
‘always be present to our mind. ah ἃ

624 JAMES, CHAP. IV. V.

17. εἰδότι οὖν καλὸν ποιεῖν, καὶ μὴ ποιοῦντι, ἁμαρτία
αὐτῷ ἐστιν. This is a conclusion, having reference
either (as Beza and Est. think) to all the foregoing
reproofs, or (as it should rather seem) only to this
Heathenish custom of forming plans without refer-
ring their event to God. And so the best Commen-
tators. By the good is meant that of acknowledging
the providence of God. And ἁμαρτία must be taken
emphatically to denote wilful and deliberate sin.
The εἰδότι seems to hint at a probable reply from the
self-conceited teachers: ‘“ We know this very well.”

CHAP. V.

Ver. 1. ἄγε νῦν of πλούσιοι, κλαύσατε ὁλολύϑοντες
ἐπὶ ταῖς ταλαιπωρίαις ὑμῶν ταῖς ἐπερχομέναις. The
first six verses of this chapter have been thought by
some to be addressed to the unbelieving Jews, among
whom the Jewish Christians lived and were perse-
cuted; and of whom many were rich, and for the
most part lived a very dissolute life; as we learn
from Philo. But, as Benson observes, it .is not
likely that the Apostle would read his Epistle. He
is therefore of opinion that they are here only apos-
trophized: and he gives examples of similar apos-
trophes from Rom. 18, 20. &c. 1, however, assent
to Rosenm. and others, that there is no reason why
we should not suppose the Christians who are cen-
sured atc. 2. It is rightly observed by Carpz., that
there commences with the words of ver. 1. the apo-
dosis, of which the protasis was extended from c. 4,
3—17.; and that the Apostle means those very
boasters, whom he had rebuked, and repeats the ἄγε
νῦν. Hethinks that these, in some measure, nominal
Christians, were rich wholesale dealers in merchan-
dize: whence mention is made of their gold, silver,
and precious garments. ?

1. κλαύσατε, “ weep” (for well ye may and will).
This use of the imperative for the future (in speak-

JAMES, CHAP. V. 625

ing of a thing certain) is characteristic of the pro-
phetical style. Ἐπὶ, on account of: The miseries
here described are by some thought to have a refer-
ence to those which then impended over the Jews,
and took place soon after, in the destruction of Jeru-
salem and the universal dispersion, when those resi-
dent in foreign countries received much worse usage
than before. See Benson and Mackn. But it is far
more natural to interpret the words (with the antients
and most moderns) of the miseries and punishments
attending an abuse of riches, both in this world, and
especially in the next. See Carpz. and Rosenm.

2, 3. ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν ση-
τόβρωτα γέγονεν.

It is well observed by Carpz., that in σέσηπε we are not (as many
do) to dwell on the etymological sense of putrefaction (understand-
ing the πλουτ. of corn, wine, oil, fruit), but solely interpret it de
operibus caducis, of riches which come to nought and perish, The
perfect is here (as in the words following) used for the present, to
denote continuation of action, and habit.

3. Ὁ χρυσὸς ὑμῶν καὶ 6 ἄργυρος κατίωται. By χρυσὸς is meant
gold in ingots, or worked up into utensils, or coined; which last
use is frequent in the best authors. On κατίωται it is observed by
Rosenm., that though gold does not, properly speaking, rust, yet
by long use it contracts a green colour, and gathers a sort of acrid
humour.* 1 would here compare Philet. ap. Athen. 380 p. Εἰς
αὔριον οὐχὶ φροντίξειν ὁ,τι Ἔσται, περίεργον ἐστιν ἀποκεῖσθαι πάνυ
Ἕωλον ἔνδον ἀργύριον. The Mythological fiction of Tantalus (who
was punished with an insatiable desire for what he could not enjoy),
inculcates, it may be observed, a fine moral lesson on the punish-
ment of avarice even in this world. :

In the καὶ ὁ ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται there is a beautifu
metaphor, by which, as Carpz. remarks, sense and speech is ascribed
to things inanimate. Ὑμῖν is for ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν, or ἐπὶ ὑμᾶς, or κατ᾽ ὑμῶν.
The sense is : “is a testimony of your covetousness, (since otherwise
your money would not have lain by you and rusted).’”’ See Matt. 8, 4.
10, 18. Kai φάγεται τὰς σάρκας ὑμῶν ws tip’ ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσ-
χάταις ἡμέραις. A most sublime image (on which see Pott), taken

* I would add, that perhaps the antient gold and silver might
be more liable to rust, from having a greater proportion of alloy.
That gold coin was thought to be subject to rust, appears from
Theocrit. Id. 16. where he says that no one would give poets
money, nay, not rub off the rust of their money and give it them.
Χρυσὸς seenis properly an adjective signifying yeliow ; as ἄργυρος,
white. 1 find an allusion to the latter in Eurip. frag, (Ε4,ὅ.

VOL, VIII. 2 5

626 JAMES, CHAP. V.

from the deleterious and painful effects of rust, when rubbed into
raw flesh. It describes the present misery and future never-ending
woe, which must result from the abuse of riches, or the amassing
them by lawless methods. At all events I cannot, with Benson and
others, refer to the miseries attendant on the destruction of Jerusa-
lem. For the πῦρ plainly alludes to that state where ‘ the worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched,” Mark 9,44. With respect to the
words ἐθησαυρίσατε ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, Which are abrupt, and have
somewhat exercised the Commentators, the best method is to repeat
πῦρ from the preceding clause, and render: ‘‘ For (I say) a fiery
punishment (see Hebr. 10, 27.) do ye treasure up against the last
days.” So Rom. 2, 5. θησαυρίξεις ὀργὴν. The ἐσχ. ij. answers to
the day of judgment in that passage, the period of judgment.

4. Ἰδοὺ, 6 μισθὸς τῶν ἐργατῶν τῶν ἀμησάντων---κρά-
ges. ‘The Apostle proceeds in a strain of warm in-
dignation against those who, in order to amass
riches, had not scrupled to defraud‘ their labourers
by various mean and dishonest artifices. By a beau-
tiful figure (found in Gen. 4, 10. 18, 20. Exod. 2,
23 and 24.), and elsewhere, the withheld wages are
said to call to God for vengeance. On which Ro-
senm. remarks: ‘ Clamare ad Celum (i. 6. ad
Deum) queedam scelera et flagitia dicuntur, quia et
graviora sunt allis, et justus judex inter homines iis
deesse solet.” So Benson: ‘ Those sins are said to
cry unto heaven, which so affect the guilty as to
seem, with a loud voice, to require vengeance.” So
we say, ““ crying sins.” The Apostle (1 would ob-
serve) appears to have had in view Malach. 8, 5.
προσάξω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν κρίσει, καὶ ἔσομαι μάρτυς TAYIS—
ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀποστεροῦντας μισθὸν μισθουτοῦ. In this verse
there is a fine parallelism. Carpz. and Rosenm. re-
mark, that azevand ἀμάᾶσθαι are used of all agricul-
tural work, both in fields, and vineyards, up to the
time of harvest: and θηρίϑειν, of all harvest work.
But this may be doubted. ’Ape can scarcely sig-
nify more than mowing grass, or reaping corn;
though θηρίϑειν may denote the getting in of any of
the fruits of summer. ’Epy., however, may very well
denote agricultural labourers of every sort, and at
any season. It is needless to refine. On Kup. af.
see the note on Rom. 9, 29. and Benson in loc. By

JAMES, CHAP. V. 627

entering into the ears of the Lord (in which there is
a fine anthropopathia,) it is implied that they are
heard, and will be attended to.

I would observe that this keeping back of the
wages does not necessarily imply utterly depriving
them thereof, but may, as we say, denote stopping
wages for various articles of food and clothing sup-
plied to the labourer, and perhaps charged at an ex-
travagant rate; which comes to the same thing.
And this is supported by Phocyl. (or rather the
Pseud. Phocyl.) in carmine νουθετικῷ (ap. Gaisf.
Poel. M. p. 447.) ver. 17. μισθὸν μοχθήσαντι δίδου" μὴ
θλῖβε πένηται, which appears to be an imitation of the
present passage. The practice seems to have ori-
ginated in the East, and thence passed into Spain.
Thus there is an allusion to it in a well known story
of Cervantes’ Don Quixote, vol. I.

5. ἐτρυφήσατε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, Χο. Having censured
their rapacity, the Apostle proceeds to animadvert
on their swinish sensuality. Thesense is: ‘* Ye live
in all manner of luxury and lasciviousness.”” On
omar. see the note on 1 Tim. 5, 6. ᾿Ηθρέψατε τὰς
καρδίας ὑμῶν ὡς ἐν ἡμέρη σφαγῆς, “ Ye fatten your-
selves as for ἃ day of slaughter,” i. e. as animals are
fattened up for slaughter. So Jerem. 12, 3. “ pull
them out like sheep for the slaughter, and prepare
them for the day of slaughter.” Ἐν is for eis. The
καρδίας is for ἑαυτοὺς. Schleus. renders it stomachs,
But see the note on Acts 14,17. It may be com-
pared with the Latin gentum. Here we have a fine
image to designate the degrading nature of gross
sensuality. Loesner compares Philo 990. where
Flacius, despairing of his safety, complains: ““ σιτία
μοι καὶ ποτὰ καθάπερ τοῖς θρέμμασιν ἐπὶ σφαγὴν δίδοται.
It is well remarked by Carpz., Pott, and Rosenm.,
that by this figure is also implied the punishment
which will follow their luxury and sensuality. So
Carpz.: “ Ut pecorum instar mactemini, obsessi
Satanz porci, extremo judicii die exitio tradendi.”

282

628 JAMES, CHAP. ¥.

IT would compare Aéschyl. Ag. 1659. where the
Chorus thus addresses Afgisthus: ΠΠράσσε, πιαίνον;
μιαίνων τὴν δίκην" ἐπεὶ maga, &c.

6. κατεδικάσατε, ἐφονεύσατε τὸν δίκαιον" οὐκ ἀντιτάσ-
σεται ὑμήν. The Apostle now touches on the merci-
less cruelty with which they endeavour to plunder
their inferiors of their little stock, to increase their
own overgrown stores. The κατεδικάσατε Rosenm.
explains: ‘“‘ Ye bring about, by contrivance and in-
fluence, that they shall be condemned by the Judges
(Christian or Heathen). And the ἐφονεύσατε : “ ye
as good as slay them, while by litigation and with-
holding from them their due, ye deprive them of the
means of subsistence.” Benson takes it literally ;
and some interpret it of the crucifixion of Christ.

The cowardice as well as cruelty of this is noted
by the οὐκ ἀντιτάσσεται ὑμῖν: for little resistance
could the poor make in such circumstances! Τὸν δί-
kaioy is put collectively, singular for plural.

7. μακροθυμήσατε οὖν, ἀδελῷοὶ, ἕως της παρουσίας τοῦ
Κυρίου. From ver. 7—11. the Apostle turns to the
Christians suffering under their oppression, and ex-
horts them patiently to endure the injuries inflicted
on them, seeing that the advent of the Lord Jesus
Christ approaches. ‘This he confirms and illustrates
by the example of the husbandman waiting for the
early and latter rains, and by that held out to them in
the suffering Prophets. (Pott.) :

The μακροθυμ.. has a double signification, i. 6. pa-
tiently endure their persecutions, and patiently wait
for the coming of the Lord. This is by many under-
stood of the advent of the Lord to destroy the Jewish
nation. But although that may be included, I cannot
but think (with many eminent Commentators) that
it principally refers to the ast advent of the Lord to
the general judgment. (See a Sermon of Bishop
Horsely on this text.) For (as Rosenm. observes)
of the time thereof the early Christians had learnt
nothing certain; but ther were continually enjoined

JAMES, CHAP. V. 629

to be mindful of that day which would liberate the
good from all the injuries and oppressions of the bad.
See ver. 8.

7. ὁ γεωργὸς ἐκδέχεται τὸν τίμιον καρπὸν τῆς γῆς. The
agricultural allusions of James and Jude are by some
ascribed to their having been husbandmen. Be that
as it may, it has been well observed by Benson, that
the works of nature afford the most obvious, noble,
and lively comparisons, and such as are most gene-
rally understood, and (I would add) especially by an
agricultural people like the Jews. Τίμιον, precious,
as supplying the staff of life. The πρώϊμον and
ὄψιμον denote, Carpz. and Rosenm. remark, what the
Hebrews called wpa or wow? and My Dw,
which are used conjointly in Deut. 11, 14. Joel 2,
23. and elsewhere. The zpwip. is that rain which
falls at the time when the seed is committed to the
ground, namely, the early autumnal rain. ‘That by
which the corn is brought to maturity is the ov. or
later spring rain. See Harmer. With the senti-
ment I would compare Aristid. 3, 270 c. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ
οἱ γεωργοὶ πολλοστῴῷ μηνὶ τῶν σπερμάτων THY ἐπικαρπίαν
κομίξονται, καὶ οὐχ ἅμα τῷ κατἀλεῖν οὕτω κ. τ. A,

9. μὴ στενάϑετε κατ᾽ ἀλληλων, ἀδελφοὶ, ἵνα μὴ κατα-
κριθῆτε. Benson and Mackn. render: “ Do not
groan against each other.” But though this seems
more exact than our common version grudge, it is,
in fact, less so: for orev. is rightly supposed by the
best Commentators to denote that low, and some-
times inaudible, expression of discontent and um-
brage signified by our mutter, murmur, grumble.
And therefore it is not well rendered by Carpz. voci-
ferari. Now this querulous feeling would originate
from various passions, mostly above adverted to,
envy, pride, &c. Whether the words can be ex-
plained (as they are by some) of the καταλαλία before
mentioned, may be doubted. Rosenm. remarks,
that the poorer Christians are here forbidden to even
groan or murmur under the oppressions of the rich,
much less resist them. But this seems a misappre-

630 JAMES, CHAP. V.

hension. The Apostle could scarcely mean to forbid
what is but the natural expression of affliction. He
seems merely to have in view that spirit of revenge
which is the result of it. There is, however, no
proof that the case of the rich and poor is_particu-
larly adverted to. It should rather seem that there
is reference generally to all those murmurings for
which, from the various competitions of life, and the
frailty of human nature, there may, nay must, be fre-
quent occasions, and for which mutual forbearance
(as the Poet says:
** Gentle, compassionate, and kind,
To faults, compassionate, or blind,’’)

isthe best cure. The most powerful motive, how-
ever, to mildness in judgment is that then suggested
by the Apostle, iva μὴ κατακριθῆτε' ἰδοὺ, κρίτης πρὸ τῶν
θυρών ἔστηκεν, namely, that we have all to meet ἃ com-
mon judge, who, with respect to every one of us, may
be said to be “ at the door,” since the irreversible
judgment in effect takes place at what is to us the
advent of our Lord, even the day of our death.

10. ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε ---- Κυρίου. To encourage
them to the observance of this precept, the Apostle
points to the examples of those who had trod the
same thorny path before them. On ὑποδ. see Joh.
13, 15. And on the evils endured by the Prophets
see Hebr. 11, 33. seq. Μακροθυμία, ““ patient endur-
ance of adversity;” as Col. 1, 11. 2 Tim. 3, 10. 4, 2.
Hebr. 6, 12. Οἱ ἐλάλησαν τῷ ὀνόματι Kupiov, “ who
spake by the authority and orders of God ;” q. d.
‘‘ If they had to encounter such evils, well may ye be
content to do so.”

11. ἰδοὺ, μακαρίϑομεν τοὺς ὑπομένοντας. “Yao. is
the participle imperfect ; and therefore we need not
adopt ὑπομεινάντας from a few MSS. Rosenm. well
paraphrases: ‘‘ We praise the constancy of those
who endured such evils, and we pronounce them on
that account blessed. ‘Therefore we should imitate
their example.” Τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε, << Ye
have (for instance) heard of, and know the patience
of Job.” Notwithstanding the doubts of some scep-

JAMES, CHAP. V. 631

tical Theologians, it must remain unquestionable
that the main events of the interesting story of Job
were literally true; though some minor circum-
stances be worked up in the poetical and oriental
manner. On Job see some excellent observations in
Suid. Ἰώβ.

11. καὶ τὸ τέλος Kupiov εἴδετε. A brief expression
for: ‘ye know the properous end which the Loré
mercifully granted to him.” Κυρίου is, as Grot. ob-
serves, the genitive of cause, i. 6. ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου διδο-
μένον or dofev, of which he adduces as examples
2 Cor. 11, 26. 1 Pet. 8, 14. Thucyd. 8, 40. κίνδυνον
Tod ὑπολειπομένον ἔχθρου. ‘The τέλος x. is, however,
explained by Augustin, Luther, and Wets., the death
of Jesus Christ for our salvation, as represented in
the Eucharist. But this seems a groundless fancy,
which might have been spared, had they remembered
the words of Job. 42, 12. (which I am surprised
should not have occurred to any of the Commenta-
tors) ὁ δὲ Κύριος εὐλόγησε τὰ ἔσχατα ᾿Ιὼβ ἢ τὰ ἔμπροσ-
θεν, where the τὰ ἔσχατα answers to the τὸ τέλος of
the present passage.

12. πρὸ πάντων δὲ----ὅρκον. Hitherto, Pott. observes,
there has been a connection in the several parts ;
but from this verse (as the Apostle is hastening to a
conclusion) there seems to be no regular plan. At
ὀμνύετε τὸν οὐρανὸν there is an ellipsis of εἰς or the like.
At μήτε ἄλλον τινα ὅρκον. however, the preposition
must not be repeated. It is put for, μή ὀμνύετε ὅρκον
TWO, μήτε εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, μήτε εἰς τὴν γην, μήτε κατ᾽
ἄλλο τὸ χρῆμα. The best Commentators are agreed
that the oaths here meant are (as the context re-
quires) those in common conversation, and on trifling
occasions, to the use of which the Jews were too
prone; and the Jewish Christians, probably, did not
sufficiently abstain from it. ‘Thus there was need to
remind them of our Lord’s prohibition. See Carpz.
As to judicial oaths, these are by no means forbidden
in the Gospel.”

12. ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὑπό κρίσιν πέσητε. The reading εἰς ὑπό-
κρισιν 1 suspect to be two readings melted into one.

632 JAMES, CHAP. Vv.

The recent Editions have ὑπὸ, But εἰς seems to be
quite as good. ᾿Εμπίπτειν εἰς κρίσιν is cited by Ro-
senm. from Sir. 29, 19. Κρίσιν is for κατακρ., condenr-
nation, and consequently punishment.

This practice is also disapproved of by Isocr. ad
Demon. p. 7. ἔνεκα δὲ χρημάτων μηδένα Θεών ὀμόσης,
μηδὲ ἂν εὐορκεῖν μέλλης, δόφεις γὰρ τοῖς ἐπιορκεῖν, τοῖς δὲ
φιλοχρημάτως ἔχειν.

13. From hence to ver. 18. follows a general ad-
monition to preserve patience and fortitude under
adversity, and especially when suffering under
sickness. (Pott.) And in order to the attainment of
this, the Apostle very properly suggests the use of
prayer to God, who (to use the words of the Royal
Psalmist) “ holdeth our soul in life, and suffereth
not our feet to slip. Kekoraéeiy signifies to be in
trouble, calamity, or affliction. It is remarked by
Rosenm.: ‘ Judai quedam morborum atrociorum
genera tribuerunt demoniis, illisque ejiciendis adsci-
verunt varias formulas verborum et cerimonias
tristes. Talem morborum curationem prohibere
videtur Jacobus.”” But this is too hypothetical and
precarious. I would simply understand this passage
as enjoining the use of prayer, as the best unction
and balm for the wounds of affliction, in opposition
to those resources which the world suggests, as the
giving vent to passionate exclamations, the use of
strong liquors, taking refuge in noisy merriment, &c.
See Benson and Mackn.
~ On the sense of ψάλλω see the note on 2 Cor. |,
17. and Col. 3, 16.

14. ἀσθενεῖ r1s—Kupiov.

The τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους Carpz. explains, viros peritos, pios, cordatos,
viros provectA jam tate, in quibus major rerum usus et consilia so-
lidiora sunt quam plerumque in junioribus. And he adds: “ Olim
consilia dabant ii ztate conspicui erant, et propter gravitatem
Patres, propter ztatem Presbyteri vocabantur.” To this, however,
it is objected by Noesselt and Rosenm., that the name πρεσβ. τὴς
ἐκκλησίας, in the New Testament, always denotes the presidents of
the church. ᾿Ασθενεῖ must, from the context, denote sickness. The
Apostle directs that these Presbyters be called in, and pray over
the sick, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Now
Noes. and Rosenm., and many others, would join ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ

JAMES, CHAP. V. 633

Κυρίου with προσευξ,, i. 6. “ pray in the name of Christ.” But this
seems harsh, It is better to refer the words both to the προσευξ.
and the ἐλαίῳ ; since the whole was done in dependence on the
aid of God, thus solemnly invoked; though, as far as regarded the
oil, it might be called a medical as well as religious means. For,
as Carpz. observes, the generous oil of the East has powerful medi-
cinal properties, and is used for various disorders; and he refers
to the story of the good Samaritan and Mark 6, 13. He and Ros.
would take the oil as put for any medicaments the case might re-
quire. But this seems too harsh; and would be supposing the
Presbyters skilful physicians; unless indeed they administered them
under the direction of such. ‘he difficulty might be removed by
supposing, with some eminent Commentators, as Deyling, Wolf,
Benson, that miraculous healing is here meant, with which the use
of oi] would not be inconsistent. Thus the disciples, Mark 6, i3.,
used it even with the miraculous power. And even our Lord him-
self condescended in general to employ some media of producing
his miraculous effects. But this hypothesis is liable to some objec-
tions, which I cannot detail, and seems scarcely tenable: though I
would by no means deny that miraculous cures did sometimes then
arise from the prayer of faith, It isremarked by Rosenm.: ‘ Fuit
nempe hc commotio animi sanctior, non semper quidem, sepe
tamen, conjuncta cum restitutione valetudinis, precipue, silanguor
corporis ex animi meerore et tristitia ortus et auctus esset.” Which
{ can scarcely understand. It should seem to have been a religious
ceremony accompanied with the use of oil, as a symbol of cure;
though it might sometimes contribute to it. How far and in what
proportion that means, or the strongly affected mind of the patient
or the real efficacy of the prayer of faith, produced these effects,
would, of course, be different in different circumstances ; and there-
fore nothing can well be defined. But one thing seems certain,
namely, that (to use the words of Doddr.) this is far removed from
the extreme unction practised by the Romanists, not for cure, but
when life is despaired of. See especially Benson. The term εὐχὴ
τῆς πίστεως, does not necessarily imply any extraordinary or miracu-
lous effect. And though it is said σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα, yet I agree
with Rosenm., that it does not follow that all the sick persons thus
prayed over recovered: the σώσει (and he might have added éyepec
and ἀφεθήσεται) is to be taken with restriction, i. e. “ this prayer will
help the sick, if it be the will of God, and expedient to his salvation.
That is (it is meant) the use of this religious ceremony shall tend
to produce the good effects implored, so far as may be consistent
with the plans of God, and his knowledge of the true state of the
patient’s heart.

16. ἐξομολογεῖσθε ἀλλήλοις τὰ παραπτώματα. This
is understood by most Commentators of confession
of some great sin which may have caused the dis-
order, and by which confession the recovery would
be furthered. But it may also be understood ge-

634 JAMES, CHAP. VY.

nerally of a confession of injuries done to any person
or persons, accompanied with entreaty for pardon,
and which ought to draw from the injurer not only
forgiveness, but prayer. Thus (I find) Carpz. takes
this verse to commence a new exhortation, not con-
nected with the former. Yet it is harsh to take
ὅπως ἰαθῆτε (as he does) of the healing and amend-
ing of sinful habits; for the context requires it to
be taken in a physical sense. It may denote that
by the use of all the above means the healing of the
sick will be promoted; i.e. they will tend to produce it.
The prayers here meant, Rosenm. thinks, are public.
See more in Benson and Mackn, or Slade.

16. πολὺ ἰσχύει δέησις---ἐνεργουμένη. Rosen. renders:
“ Precatio pii multtim valet efficere;” taking it for
ἰσχύει ἐνεργεῖν. But this is sinking the ἐνεργουμένη, in
which the difficulty is seated. Of all the versions the
E. V. effectual, is the worst, as being miserably tau-
tological. Possibly it may be rightly rendered by
Hamm., Bull, Benson, Wells, and Mackn., “ prayer
inwrought by the spirit ;” for this verb and its cog-
nate ones are often used of inspired prayer. See
Schl. Lex. or Wahl. I could compare Procop. B.
G. 2. p. 64, 29. ἀνὴρ δικαιός τε καὶ Θεῷ μάλιστα φίλος,
καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐνεργοῦσαν ἐς ὅ, τι βούλοιτο ἀεὶ τὴν εὐχὴν
ἔχων. But it is not clear that the context will per-
mit this: and it may very well be rendered, with
the Vulg., assidua, earnest, ardent ; for the participle
passive often signifies what is done with much la-
bour, évegyés. On the availing of the prayer of the
righteous see the numerous references in Benson.

17, 18. On ὀμοιοπαθὴς, “a mere mortal, of like
faculties with ourselves, with no more natural powers
than such as we possess,” see the note on Acts 14.
15. Προσευχῇ προσηύξατο, ‘prayed earnestly.” At
τοῦ μὴ must be understood ἕνεκα, ᾿Επὶ τῆς γῆς is
taken by most recent Commentators to mean the
ten tribes of Israel. And to this sense Benson thinks
the connexion determines it. On the trifling dis-
crepancy in the three years and six months of James,

JAMES, CHAP. Y. 635

and what we find in Luke 4, 25., see the note on that
passage. Κάρπον is used collectively for fruits.
Βλαστ. is used of the growth of corn or grass, or any
other of the fruits of the earth.

It is observed by Rosenm., that St. James adduces
the example of Elijah, to show that God listens to
the prayers of good men; but does not define whether
he satisfies their wishes in a natural or ina miraculous
manner. See, however, Benson.

19, 20. The Apostle now, in some measure, re-
turns to the subject of ver. 15 & 16., in which, hav-
ing exhorted them to mutual confession, he now in-
culcates mutual assistance in correcting each other's
vices. (Pott.)

Πλανηθῇ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας must denote not only a
deviation from truth and purity of doctrine, but also
from true virtue. So Joh. 3, 21. ὁ ποιῶν ἀληθείαν.
Compare 1 Joh. 3, 8. Rom. 2, 8. and other places.
Thus ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ, will denote not only error of
opinion, but of practice. See Benson. aces ψυχὴν
ἐκ θανάτου, i.e. by leading him to reformation, he
will do what shall tend to the salvation of his house.

20. καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαοτιῶν. It has been a
disputed point whether this covering of sins should
be referred to the person who converts, or to him
that is converted. ‘The former opinion is adopted
by Bede, Aquin., Origen, Damasc., Vorst., Hamm.,
Whitby, Wells, Pyle, and others; and it is counte-
nanced by a few parallel passages of the Old Testa-
ment, as Proy. 16, 6. and Dan. 14, 27.; and is ably
defended by Hamm. and Whitby. The datter opi-
nion is supported by the most eminent Commenta-
tors from Grot., as Benson, Pott, and Rosenm.
They argue (to use the words of Slade) that “it seems
hardly consonant with the language and doctrines
of the Gospel, that any sin should be forgiven, if it be
unrepented or persisted in; andif it be repented and
forsaken, it will be pardoned without the meritorious
act here mentioned.” This might perhaps admit
of a satisfactory answer; but when the context is

636 JAMES, CHAP, ν.

attentively considered, I cannot but wonder that
any should ever have interpreted the words otherwise
than in the latter way. Tothe objection, that “thus
the latter clause will add nothing to the sense,”’ it
may be replied, with Mr. Slade, that the Apostle is
treating of the sick, &c. And he might have added
that innumerable instances of a similar exergasia are
to be found in Scripture. The passage is very well
paraphrased by Mr. Slade (after the above Com-
mentators) thus: “ Brethren, if any of you shall have
erred from the truth, and one shall have converted
him, know, that he who (in such circumstances, i. e.
of sickness or disease) shall have turned a sinner
from the error of his way (shall have led him effectu-
ally to repent of his offences, and have thus prepared
him for the prayer and blessing of the elders), will
be the means of saving him from death, and of
drawing a veil over many of his transgressions (of
screening them from the sight or remembrance of
God, as well as men, i. 6. of obtaining for them par-
don and entire forgiveness).” See also Bp. Hall ap.
D’Oyly. Now in this clause, as in the former one,
it is the tendency only that is spoken of, 1. 6. ‘‘he
shall do what will tend to save his soul from per-
dition, and will contribute to his former sins being
covered, hidden out of sight, and forgiven by God.
See Ps. 32,1. In no other way can it be under-
stood; since even ‘conversion, when real, does not
necessarily imply final perseverance, which can alone
ensure salvation.

637

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER.

For introductory matter to this Epistle I must
refer the reader to the usual authorities. I will only
observe, in reference to the doubt entertained
whether St. Peter’s remains are really deposited at
Rome, that the fact is attested by Procop. 195, 10.

CHAP. I.

Ver. 1. In this and the following verse there is
contained a salutation; but the exordium of the
whole Epistle extends to ver. 12. (Carpz.)

1. ἐκλεκτοίς, Christians (as Rom. 8, 33. and else
where). A title taken from the Old Testament, in
which the Israelites are called ETN. Παρεπιδή-
pos, IWIN, Jews dwelling out of the country, and
therefore sojourners. Some understand proselytes of
the gate, not circumcised, but worshipping the one
true God. This interpretation they found on C. 4, 3.,
which seems to hint that those to whom Peter wrote
were not all Jews by nation. But see the note in
loco. (Rosenm.) The same view too, is taken by
Carpz., who observes that there were in the congre-
gation doubtless many converted Gentiles as well as
Jews. Soin St. Paul’s Epistles to Gentiles we often
meet with expressions which relate to Jews. And
Wolf, Rosenm., and Pott have shown that the Epistle
was written to all Christians, both Jewish and Gen-
tile, in the countries out of Palestine; though chiefly
to the Jews. For many things occur in the Epistle
which pertain to the Jews only ; and others only to
the Jews.

638 1 PETER, CHAP. I.

1. διασπορᾶς Πόντου, “dispersed over Pontus.” The
Jews were indeed dispersed over various regions, at
different times and occasions, whether in wars, as by
Tiglath Phalesar, Shalmanazar, and Nebuchadnezzar,
or to avoid internal evils, on which accounts many
emigrated into Syria, Egypt, and other parts of the
Roman empire. See a curious passage in Plato
1031 bp. where are named Pontus, Galatia, Cappa-
docia, Asia, and Bithynia, all countries of Asia Mi-
nor. When, therefore, Asia is separately mentioned,
we are to understand Asia Proper, i. e. Proconsular,
viz. Phrygia, Mysia, Caria, Lydia, and the sea-coast
generally of Asia Minor. The ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπιδήμοις
διασποράς Πόντου, &c., are, then, the Jewish Chris-
tians dispersed over those countries. (Rosenm.) That
ἐκλεκτ. cannot imply absolute election to life eternal,
See Lardner ap. Slade.

2. κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ rarpis—Xpiorod. The
κατὰ πρόγνωσιν is to be referred, per trajectionem, to
the ἐκλεκτοῖς preceding. IIpeyvwois here signifies
counsel, desire; as Acts 2, 23. The sense then is,
that they were brought to the Christian religion by
the counsel and desire of God the Father. See Eph.
1,5 &11. ᾿Αγιασμῷ, consecration, initiation. Now
those are initiated into religion (εἰς ὑπακοὴν), who are
instructed in it, which instruction was effected by
the spirit (πνεῦμα), not immediately, but through the
Apostles and other inspired teachers. Ὑπακοὴ does
not belong to αἵματος, but stands alone. ‘Pavriopov
7s joined with it, and must be taken passively. By
ὑπακοὴ is meant the embracing of the religion, ὑπακοὴ
πίστεως ; so termed, because a belief in the doctrines
and an obedience to the injunctions of Christ is in-
volved in embracing his religion. Ῥαντισμὸν is de-
rived from the ceremonial law. See Exod. 24, 8. and
Numb. 31, 23. So we, in entering the heavenly
sanctuary, must be sprinkled with the blood of
Christ, and purged from our sins; which is effected
by that blood. ‘The death of Christ is therefore the
cause of the remission of our sins, and a reason why

1 PETER, CHAP. I. 639

we should avoid sin, and live holily, righteously, and
godly.

2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη. ‘There is the same
prayer in 1 Cor. 1, 3. and elsewhere.

8. Incipit Petrus ab insigni religionis Christiane
commendatione, et commemoratione beneficiorum
Dei, in illos Judzos collatorum, v. 3—12. (Rosenm.)
The Apostle reminds them of the happy immortality
set before them in the Gospel, and which they would
obtain, if they continued true to their Christian pro-
fession. This paves the way for the mention of
trials and persecutions introduced at ver. 6. ’Ava-
γεννᾷν is here, by most recent Commentators, inter-
preted recreare, feliciorem reddere ; and this is coun-
tenanced by ἐλπίδα ϑώσαν just after. But it seems
only a secondary sense; and the primary one is,
doubtless, the regeneration we experience on be-
coming Christians. So, in a kindred passage of
Tit. 3.5. κατὰ τὸν αὐτοῦ ἔλεον ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς, Oia λου-
τροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, καὶ ἀνακαινωίσεως. Πνεύματος ἁγίου.
This regeneration, of course, implies a change for
the better, both physical and moral.

The ἐλπίδα gwoav, Carpz. explains, spem certam,
ἀσφαλῆ. But this is too limited. It must mean a
vigorous, active, spirit-stirring hope; as opposed to
the cold faint hope of Heathenism, nay, even Ju-
daism. ‘There may, too, be an allusion to the “ life”
which Christ emphatically “ brought to light.” Ro-
senm. and Pott render: letissimam. But this is
too vague. Now this hope was ministered by Christ’s
resurrection, inasmuch as that showed the possibility
of our own resurrection, and as being a proof and
pledge thereof, and a seal and confirmation of the
whole Christian doctrine.

4. εἰς κληρονομίαν ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραν-
tov. The Apostle explains the object of that hope,
even the greatest felicity that can be enjoyed.
(Bens. and Rosenm.) Κληρονομία is often used to
denote certainty of attainment. Αφθαρτον, impe-
rishable, “like the joys of paradise (says Rosenm.),

640 1 PETER, CHAP. I.

ever flourishing.”” Benson thinks there is an allu-
sion to the immortality of the former verse. ᾿Αμί-
αντον, undefiled, pure, uncontaminated by those frail-
ties and vices which so detract from all human hap-
piness, and untainted with that evil which in this
world is necessarily mixed with good. Such appears
to be the simplest sense; though Benson has many
refined speculations, and Pott runs into the other
extreme of treating the ἀφθ., ἀμιαντ., and ἀμαρ. as
mere synonymes, accumulated to represent consum-
mate felicity. ᾿Αμάραντον, never fading, because (as
Mackn. explains) it will never grow old; its beauties
will remain fresh through all eternity; and its plea-
sures never become insipid by enjoyment. Tery-
ρημένην ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰς ἡμᾶς. So ἀποκεῖθαι, 2 Tim. 14,
8. and Col. 1, 4. where see the note. ‘* Not (ex-
plains Bens.) to be enjoyed in Canaan, or on this
earth, cr under the kingdom of a temporal Messiah,
but secure in heaven; which denotes its certainty,
duration, and excellence.” See 2 Pet. 3.13.

5. τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ Gpoupoupevour—eo χάτῳ, “ For
ye who are preserved and guarded by the powerful
protection of God (who can give us all the felicity
we hope for), through faith, i. 6. through the pro-
fession of the Gospel, by which ye obtain it,” or (as
some explain) under condition of faith in the Gospel.
Now this, the Apostle says, is €roipy ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,
i. e. is reserved, destined to be revealed, and will
be revealed and imparted to us. “Ky καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.
This some understand of the destruction of Jerusa-
lem, or the Gospel age, the last end of the world.
But it seems most natural to interpret it of the final
consummation of all things. For, as Benson says,
the revelation of Jesus Christ is sometimes called
the end of the world, the last day, the last time.
And at the general conflagration a great salvation
shall be revealed.” See his note.

6. ἐν w ἀγαλλιάσθε---πειρασμιοῖς. By this very
hope of future felicity, and the beneficial effects of
adversity in producing moral reformation, the Apostle

1 PETER, CHAP. I. 641

supported them under the tribulations to be en-
dured in the cause of religion. ᾿Εν ᾧ, by the per-
petual custom of the Apostle of joining periods to
periods by the use of the pronoun relative, is for ἐν
τούτῳ δὲ, 501]. καίρῳ ἐσχάτῳ; or we may, with Grot.
and Wolf, subaud χρήματι. (Pott) ᾿Αγαλλιᾶσθε
is for the future, ἀγαλλιάσεσθε. Εἰ δέον ἐστι, “if
thus it must be (see Acts 14, 22.);” namely, from
the nature of circumstances, and the disposition of
the Jews and Heathens. The sense is: “this feli-
city ye expect, although now, for a time ye feel
misery from various tribulations brought upon you
by the Jews and unbelieving Gentiles.” Ὀλίγον,
short, as compared with eternity. (Rosenm.) Other
modes of interpretation are propounded by some
Commentators. See Pole, Pott, and Benson. The
ὀλίγον may perhaps signify both a short time, and “in
a slight degree.” The εἰ δέον ἐστι may be rendered,
‘* seeing it is needful.” And so Benson and Jaspis.
But it rather seems that the expression is highly
elliptical, and is used because some of those whom
the Apostle addressed were thus afflicted, and others
not. Now εἰ δέον ἐστι would, in its popular accep-
tation, embrace both. I wouldehere compare Phi-
lostr. V.. Ap. 4, 37.

7. ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως----Χριστοῦ. The
τὸ δοκίμιον vp. τ. π. signifies, “ that by which your
faith is tried,” or, ‘“‘your approved faith,” i. e. re-
liance on God for a happy termination to your trials, —
and firm constancy by which you bear up under
them. See more in Benson and Pott. δοκίμιον is,
as Rosenm. says, put for δοκιμιὴ (as at James 1, 3.),
1. 6. πίστις δοκιμιαϑομιένη. Now this, it is said, is more
precious than the most precious of metals, and is far
more permanent than that which resisteth corruption
the longest, even gold.

By the ἀποκαλύψις ᾿[ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, must be meant
the advent of Christ to Judgment. Now as gold is
said διὰ πυρὸς δοκιμάϑεσθαι, so, it is meant, that our

VOL. VIII. 2T

642 1 PETER, CHAP. I.

virtue, the most valuable of all our possessions, is
tried and proved. |

8. ὃν οὐκ εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε---δεδοξασμιένη, “ Whom,
though not having seen (when on earth), ye love, and
in whom, though not now beholding, ye rejoice with
joy unspeakable and glorious.” ‘The loving and trust-
ing in, denote the recognising him as Messiah, and
from him alone looking for salvation. ‘The εἰδότες is
supposed by Wells to allude to the case of Thomas,
and to the words which our Saviour uttered on that
occasion; ‘ Blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed,” Joh. 20, 29. At ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
subaud εἰς ᾧ, which is for ἐφ᾽ ᾧ. Δεδοξαμιένη, exalted.
supreme. So 2 Cor. 3, 10, οὐδὲ δεδοξάσται τὸ δεδοξ-
ασιμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει. Besides (as Pott remarks)
the blessedness of the Messiah’s kingdom is usually
represented under the term δόξα. See Schleus. Lex.
The ἀγαλλιᾶσθε is explained by Benson and the re-
cent Commentators as put for the future. And so
some of the antient Versions. But this is precarious,
and indeed unnecessary; since the joy in question
would have its commencement in this world; though
its consummation would be reserved for another.

9. κομιϑόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, σωτηρίαν
ψυχῶν. Agreeably to the interpretation of ἀγαλλι-
ἄσθε just mentioned, the κομιδόμιενοι is by some taken
for κομισάμενοι. But this is too bold. It is only
necessary to suppose the word to refer to their being
placed in a state which led to salvation, and that so
certain that, unless it were their own fault, they
might be said already to have it. Koig. here sig-
nifies to carry off as a reward; as 2 Cor. 5, 10. and
Eph. 6, 8. where see the notes. Τὸ τέλος, the best
Commentators are agreed (like the Hebr. N°77:s),
is, by an agonistical metaphor, used to denote the
crown, or reward. See Rom. 6, 21. Σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν.
So James 1, 21. σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμών. I agree with
Moldenhauer and Rosenm. that this has reference
to the present blessings as well as the future felicity,
conferred by the Gospel. |

1 PETER, CHAP. I. 643

10. περὶ ἧς σωτηρίας ---προφητεύσαντες, “ concerning
which felicity, and its nature, the Prophets studiously
examined, and diligently enquired after (the Pro-
phets I say), who prophesied of the grace which was
to come unto you.” ‘The ἐξ. is intensive. They saw
(says Rosenm.) that something great was reserved
for our later times; but what it would be, the Pro-
phets did not fully apprehend. (Compare Luke 10,
24.) They prophesied, indeed, of the blessings of
which we are now made partakers; but, for the
most part, under types and shadows.” The various
blessings of the Gospel are here, as often, designated
by the general term χάρις: and (as Rosenm. ob-
serves) their being prophesied is mentioned, as show-
ing that they are not fortuitous.

11. ἐρευνῶντες εἰς τίνα---δόξας. ᾿Ερευν. is for ἐρευνή-
σαντες, and that for the verb. The sense, then, is;
‘** For they diligently investigated at what time, and
what kind of time, that would happen which the Holy
Spirit, given by Christ, had showed to them, who,
by his inspiration, signified what Christ should suffer,
and the glory to which he should be exalted.” Τίνα
ἢ ποῖον are treated by Pott as synonymous; as in
Mark 4, 30. and Acts 7,49. He also adduces some
passages of the Classical writers. But in those cases
there are parallelisms, which is not the case here. Ro-
senm, rightly thinks the ποῖον may refer to the state
of the people, whether wholly free, or partly so, or in
bondage. ‘The Apostle is supposed to have in view
Dan. 9, 22 & 23. At τὸ there is the usual ellipsis of
ὃν. The Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, because
it was then given by Christ to the Prophets (espe-
cially as concerning himself). Τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν raby:
ματα, sub. ἐσόμενα, which is for ἀποβησόμενα (like the
τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Acts 5,1.). There is the
same ellipsis at τὰς pera ταῦτα δύξας. The δόξας
refers to the various glories subsequent to the passion
of Christ, namely, his resurrection, ascension, glo-
rification, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the

272

64:4 1 PETER, CHAP. I.

calling of the Gentiles, the working of miracles, &c.
Phil. 2, 9.

12. οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς" ἡμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν
αὐτὰ, ““Τὸ whom (in consequence of their anxious
enquiry) it was revealed, that not for their own be-
nefit, or with relation to themselves, but for us, and
to.us, they were made ministers of announcing those
things unto us (those things, I say) which now have
been (plainly) revealed to you by those who have
preached the Gospel to you, by the influence and
assistance of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven
(things, I say), over which the angels bend with ad-
miration, and delight to look into.” Of διακονεῖν in
the sense announce, Rosenm. adduces an example
from Joseph. Ant. 6,13. ταῦτα δὲ τῶν πεμῷθέντων
διακονησάντων πρὸς τὸν Νάβαλον. Ἐαγγελεῖν, in an
active sense, with the Accusative of person for ἃ
Dative, is frequent in Scripture. It is observed, by
Rosenm., that the predictions of the Prophets pre-
ceded, in order to increase our faith in the preaching
of the Apostles. Eis ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν παρακύψαι. Ἰίαρακ.
is taken as at James 1, 25., where see the note. By
the ἃ are meant ail the wonderful things above men-
tioned, before their event not thoroughly known to
the Angels, but now surveyed and contemplated
with wonder and delight; for that is the sense of
ἐπιθυμ. Perhaps nothing can more strongly excite
our admiration of the Gospel than this glorious
passage.

13. Now follows an exhortation to a holy life,
deduced from the foregoing commemoration of the
glories and blessings of the Gospel: and this is ex-
tended to 3, 16. (Rosenm.)

13. διὸ ἀναϑωσάμιενοι τὰς oodvas—Xpioro, “ Where-
fore, such being the glory and felicity prepared to
reward your obedience, gird up the loins of your
minds.’ A metaphor, as Rosenm. says, in which
there is blended the zmage of the thing, and the thing
expressed by theimage. It is (he thinks) a metaphor

1 PETER, CHAP. 1. 645

taken from Oriental travellers, who, on setting out,
gird up their long flowing garments about their loins.
But it may have reference to any active exertion
or labour, to which such girding is there equally
necessary. ‘The application is obvious. On νήφειν
see 1 Thess. 5,6. and 2 Tim. 4, 5. and the notes.
Teaciws must be construed with ἐλπίσατε. It is, as
Fischer thinks, for τελέως, and stands in the place of
εἰς τέλος, constantly. In the words following Ro-
senm. thinks there is a trajectio for ἐπὶ τὴν χάριν τὴν
Φερομιένην ὑμῖν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The
χάρις (he observes) denotes the highest effect of
Divine benevolence, namely, eternal felicity. égew
here signifies to offer: for that is offered unto all
who obey the Gospel ; but will be attained only at
the revelation of Jesus Christ, when he will show his
majesty to all, both men, angels, and demons.

14. ws τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, for τέκνα ὑπηκοά. The συσ-
χηματίϑεσθαι is strangely rendered, by Rosenm.,
transformari. It rather means conformari, or, as being
reflected verb, se conformare, to conform, accommo-
date, mould oneself by (σὺν) any mould. What these
ἐπιθυμίαι were, we find from 4, 3. ᾿Εν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ is for
ἐν χρόνῳ τῆς ἀγνοίας (as at Acts 17, 30.). before they
had been enlightened by the Gospel.

15, 16. ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον, καὶ
αὐτοὶ ἅγιοι ἐν πάση ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε, ““Βαΐ, after
the example of the holy Being that hath called you,
be ye also, in all your conduct and behaviour, holy.”
Thus we are to imitate our Father and our God, as
good children do their parents. The sentiment is con-
firmed from Levit. 11, 44. It is well remarked, by
Rosenm., that such an imitation must be still more
incumbent on ws, who profess a far purer religion
than Judaism.

On ἀναστροῷῦ in the above sense I have before
treated. “Ayss, it may be observed, is an epithet
which is, above all others, applicable to God, and
ascribed to him in Scripture. See Pole’s Synopsis.

17. Now follows the second argument, by which

646 1 PETER, CHAP. 1.

we are actuated to virtue, and that derived from the
Divine benignity and justice. The καὶ is rendered,
by Rosenm., immo. But it may more simply be
rendered porro, and further, moreover. Ei, 3, seeing
that. Πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε τὸν ἀ. κι κ, τ. ἐ. ἐν, “γα Te-
ligiously invoke (or profess so to do) a Father who
impartially judgeth every one’s work.” ᾿Απροσῶώπο-
λήπτως, ““ without reference to birth or fortune, or
any thing but virtue.” [Ἔργον is a collective put for
the plural. “Ev φόβω τὸν τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον
ἀναστράφητε. ᾿Αναστρέφεσθαι signifies vervar?, se
gerere; as 2 Cor, 1,12. Eph. 2, 3. and 2 Pet. 2, 18.,
and often in the later Classical writers. ‘Tov χρόνον
is an accusative of duration of time. ἹΠαροικίας, so-
journ; and that in two respects, both as sojourning
among the Gentiles, and as human life is itself a
sojourn. See Heb. 11,13., and consult Slade. 1
would compare Arrian Ep. 2, 23. and Philostr. V.
ap. 1, 22. 5. m. χρόνος τῆς ἀποδημίας. By ἐν φόβω is
denoted anxious caution in our conduct, through fear
of offending God; as in Phil. 2, 12. μετὰ φόβου καὶ
τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτών σωτηρίαν κατεργ., where see the note.

18, 19. εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαοτοῖς---πατροπαραδύότου,
* Knowing (as ye do), and bearing in mind, that ye
were not, by corruptible things (however precious),
as gold and silver, liberated from your vain and
foolish conduct and manner of life received from
your forefathers.” Marais, vain, vicious; as Tit.
3,9. Ithas reference not only to tdolatry, but to
the other vices which that carries with it, and to
which human nature is so prone. *Eavrgwiyre may
simply signify liberated: but there is an allusion to
the atoning blood of Christ, without which not even
the religion that liberated them could have been
promulgated. Tipio αἵματι, “ with that blood which
procured us the most precious advantages.” The
ἀμιώμου and ἀσπίλου have an allusion to the requisites
in the victims, which were to be without blemish or
defect, i.e. by either being defective, or crippled in
any member. Of the blemishes mention is made in

1 PETER, CHAP. I. 647

Levit. 22, 20—24. and Mal.1, 8. Now the spotless-
ness of Christ consisted in his being absolutely
exempt from all sin. The ws is taken, by Rosenm.,
for ἀληθώς. But this is too arbitrary. The sense
is: “as (being).” So Pott resolves it by ἦν yap αἵμα
ἅμνου, &c. He observes that lamb and dove have
ever been symbols of innocence and patience. Com-
pare 1 Cor. 6, 20. & Rom. 4,7—9. And see Slade.
20,21. προεγνωσμένου μὲν, &c., “ΟΥ̓ that Christ (1
say) who was ordained, destined to this work of
liberation and redemption before the creation of the
world, but made his appearance in these latter times
for your sakes, who, by him and his preaching, trust
in God that raised him from the dead and glorified
him, so that your faith and hope are (reposed) in
God.” Such, I conceive, is the true sense. Lgoys-
νώσκειν here signifies, not to foreknow, but, what is
consequent on it, predetermine, predestinate, decree.
Thus it is joined with wpoopifev at Rom. 8, 29., and
Kypke adduces some Classical examples, but not
apposite. Ips καταβολῆς κόσμου, “ from eternity.”
This has been before explained. aveg. has the re-
flected sense, having showed himself, appeared ; which
may include his actions on earth. See Rosenm. On
ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν χρόνων see Heb. 1,1. Δι ὑμᾶς (on
which Pott unnecessarily dilates) plainly signifies,
you and your fellow Christians, or you Christians.
Δι’ αὐτοῦ, “ by him,” i.e. by his doctrine, miracles,
and the various blessings he imparted. See Joh.
14, 6. and Heb. 7, 25. By πίστις is meant not only
belief in God (for in that they were not wanting),
but trust in his mercy, as shown in sending the Mes-
siah to redeem and bless. ‘This includes (what the
words following hint at) their belief in the Divine
legation of Jesus. Or, as Benson explains, they
believed not so much in God who had brought them
out of the land of Egypt, who had raised and glori-
fied Jesus Christ.
* Q1. ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς Θεόν.
Rosenm. (from Bens.) paraphrases: “ In vain do

648 1 PETER, CHAP. I,

your countrymen charge you with defection from
God; for your very faith and hope in Christ tend to
that God of whom they profess to be worshippers.”
In this and the preceding verse, Benson thinks the
Gentile converts are meant. But that seems an er-
roneous opinion. :

22, Afier having given the above arguments to
the living holily and righteously, he returns to the
exhortation that they should strive after virtue, and,
above all, brotherly love. (Pott.)

22. ras ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες, &c., ‘ Wherefore,
having purified your hearts by your obedience to the
true doctrine, so far as to bear a sincere love to your
Christian brethren, see that ye (continue to) love
each other with a pure heart, and ardently.” In
ἡγνικότες Rosenm. recognizes a similitude derived
from the lustrations previous to sacrifice enjoined by
the Mosaic Law, Exod. 19,10, What the Christian
lustrations previous to worship should be, few can
need being informed. See Rosenm. By the ἀληθεία
is meant “the truth as it is in Jesus, the Gospel.” Ty
ὑπακοὴ τῆς ἀληθείας, “ hearkening to the Gospel of
truth, embracing the religion to whose acceptance it
invites. The διὰ πνεύματος, Benson explains, “ made
and confirmed by the Spirit.”. But it seems to refer
to the influence of the Holy Spirit, both in the pro-
mulgation of the Gospel, and in its operation on the
hearts of believers unto sanctification. Sover. 2. ἐν
ἁγιασμώ πνεύματος. ‘These words are, indeed, omit-
ted in some MSS. ; but that is only ex emendatione,
since they seem to interrupt the construction. ᾿Εκ
καθαρᾶς καρδίας is taken as at 1 Tim. 1, 5., where see
the note. I would compare βοῦν]. Eum. 282.
ἀφ᾽ ἀγνοῦ στόματος εὐφήμιος KaAwW— Αθηναίαν. ᾽Εκτε-
νῶς, ardently, as Christ loved us.

23. ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς, ἀλλὰ
ἀφθάρτου. ‘These words assign a reason for this love.
And dvayey. is for ἀναγ. yap ἐστε. (Pott.) ““ For ye
have been born again,” 1. 6. of water and the Holy
Spirit, and have attained a moral regeneration, which

1 PETER, CHAP. 1. 649

is the pledge of eternal salvation, regenerated (I say)
not of perishable seed, or by human means.” This,
Rosenm. observes, is levelled against the Jews, who
boasted of their descent from Abraham. Compare
Joh. 1, 18. 3, 6. Σπορᾶς ἀφθάρτου, * imperishable and
ever efficacious,” i.e. as the Apostle adds, the λόγου
ϑῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, * the doctrine
of the living God.” The μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα may
either refer to God (and so Grot. and Est., who cite
Dan. 6, 26. αὐτὸς ἐστι Θεὸς Sov καὶ μένων), Or to λόγου,
i. e. the Gospel ; and this method, which is adopted
by Pisc., Vorst., Wolf, and almost all recent Critics,
is more agreeable to the propriety of language and
the context, especially the following citation from
Isaiah: “ Now this Gospel (annotates Rosenm.) re-
maineth for ever; for whatever God has said is for
ever true and valid.’ The application is obvious.
Λόγος Sav is for Δ. ϑωοποιών. See Acts 7, 88.

24, 25. The sentiment of the preceding verse is
amplified by a passage of Is. 40, 5 ἃ 7., in which,
however, the words of the Prophet are probably ac-
commodated to the present purpose; q.d. “ these
words of the Prophet Isaiah may, in a more excellent
sense, hold good of the Gospel.” - The sense of the
words is plain.» Sae§, our earthly, human nature,
man. Δόξα ἀνθρώποις, man in his most glorious state,
adorned with all that health, strength, beauty, riches,
honours, learning, and eloquence can give him.
᾿Εξηράνθη 6 χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε. These
words are exegetical of the preceding ; and the past
tenses are used for presents, Hebraicé, or perhaps to
suggest the speed of the falling away. See James
1,11. Philologists compare the passage of Hom. II.
§. 146., and others. The application is obvious.

25. τὸ δὲ ῥῆμα Kugiov μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ““ But the
word of the Lord is invariably true, always effica-
cious, and tending to eternal life and happiness.”
Τοῦτο δὲ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς, ““ And
that eternal truth is the very doctrine which is
preached to you, i.e. (as Benson paraphrases) “1

650 1 PETER, CHAP. I. Il.

am desirous that you should know what I mean by
the seed of a spiritual and incorruptible life; and by
that word which renders men immortal, or makes
them to endure for ever. And therefore, I expressly
declare, I here mean the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

CHAP. II.

Ver. 1,2. ᾿Αποθέμινοι οὖν πᾶσαν κακίαν---καταλα-
λίας, “ Seeing then that ye are regenerated by the
word of truth, laying aside the vices which are so
opposite to that state, as malice, guile, &c. Here
ἀποτιθ. is used as at James 1, 21. Eph. 4, 22 and 25.
Kaxia, though a general term, yet, from the context,
must here denote that species of evil, namely, malice.
Now to this and other vices associated with it the
Jews were too prone.

2. ‘Qs ἀρτιγέννητα βρέψη, τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπι-
ποθήσατε. ‘This is said in conformity to the meta-
phor at 1,23. Such they were, as being recent con-
verts. The metaphor was used by the Jews, who (as
will appear from the citations of Wets.) called new
converts sucklings. On ἀρτιγ. see Pollux 2,8. To λο-
γικὸν γάλα is for τὸ τοῦ λόγου y.. the milk of the Gos-
pel, which (especially in its elementary parts) is often
so called. See 1 Cor. 3, 2. Hebr. 5, 12. and the
notes. Whitby explains it of the milk which rational
creatures feed upon: and he compares Rom. 12,
1. and James 1, 21. But something higher seems
intended ; and this interpretation is (I think) not so
proper as the former. “Adora, pure, sincere, and
therefore salutary, in opposition to the mixed and
adulterated doctrines spoken of at 2 Cor.2,17. I
would compare Aischyl. Ag. 94. ἀδόλοισι παρηγορίαις.
In ἐπιποθήσατε, earnestly desire, the ἐπὶ is intensive.
‘The application is obvious.

2. ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε, “ that ye may make greater
and greater progress in knowledge and virtue.’ In
many MSS., Versions, and Fathers is added εἰς σω-

1 PETER, CHAP. 11. 651

τηρίαν ; which reading is adopted by almost all recent
Critics. Yet, though it is well supported, I cannot
but suspect it (with Mill and Wolf) to be a gloss ;
since for its omission in so many MSS. no reason can
be imagined; but its addition is easily accounted
for. Wolf moreover thinks, that, had the Apostle
chose to add any thing further, he would have written
εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον ; as Eph. 4, 18.

3. εἴπερ ἐγεύσασθε ὅτι γρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος. Γεύεσθαι
here signifies to know by taste, or experience; as
Joseph. Ant. 2, 10, 3. Compare Ps. 39, 9. The
sense is: ‘‘ If indeed (as is the case) ye have expe-
rienced that the Lord is gracious and benignant ;
q. d. “* As infants in experiencing the sweetness of
the mother’s milk, seek it the more, aud love the
mother the better; so ye Christians, who have ex-
perienced the salubrity of the milk of doctrine, are
similarly affected towards Christ.”

4, 5. πρὸς ὃν προσερχόμιενοι---- Χριστοῦ.

It is rightly observed by Wolf and Pott, that these verses (in
which, using the words of Ps. 118, 12. the Apostle proceeds to ex-
hort Christians not only to receive, but also to observe the precepts of
the Christian religion) are closely connected ; the former contain-
ing ἃ protasis ; the latter, an apodosis. Rosenm. paraphrases thus :
“Α quo tempore Jesum, ἃ primoribus Judzorum reprobatum, Deo
autem carissimum, pro Messid agnovistis, eumque coluistis, ab eo
tempore ipsi quoque Deo estis cari ; estis pars societatis selectissi-
morum hominum, Deum secundum precepta Christi colentium.”
The words (he continues) designate the dignity and excellence of
Christians. Compare ver. 9. and Ps. 118, 22. Is. 8, 14. 38, 16.
Matt. 21, 42. Eph. 2, 20. By the ἀνθρώπων, men, are meant the
Jews, particularly those of the Sanhedrim, who rejected Jesus,
though declared by God himself the Messiah. Παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν,
‘in the sight of God most excellent.’ II. Θ. is a forensic metaphor.
The προσέρχεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Κριστὸν, come unto Christ, who is here
improprié called a living stone, is nothing more than believing in
and professing his religion. Then as Christ is compared with a
stone, so are Christians compared with the living stones of which
the ‘Temple was built, i.e. a society acknowledging Jesus for the
Messiah.

Καὶ αὐτοὶ---πνευματικὸς, “ Ye also are a part of the Temple, alle-
gorically so called; are members of that Church and society of
which Christ is the head and Lord. By the οἶκος πνευματικὸς is meant
the universal Church, all Christians throughout the world. Not
only (it is said) are Christians a part of this temple, but priests of it

652 1 PETER, CHAP. 11.

themselves, i, e. as acceptable to God as those chosen priests of the
Old Testament. Πνευματικὰς θυσίας, i, e. sacrifices offered from
the heart (of which the antient ones were but types and shadows),
and consisting of prayers and good works of every kind. (Rosenm.)
See more in Pott, or in Whitby and Mackn., or the extracts in
Slade. I would observe that there is a very similar expression to
the παρὰ δὲ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτὸν, ἐντίμον, in the Carmina Sybillina Edit,
Gallei. ἐκλεκτὸν παρὰ πατρὶ Θεῷ καὶ τίμιον εἶναι, evidently an imi-
tation, probably from interpolation ; although I suspect that many
of those Carmina are fabrications of the Monks of the middle ages.
With the πνευματικὰς θυσίας 1 would compare Heb. 13, 16. τοιαύ-
rats θυσίαις evapereirar ὁ Θεὸς. Ps. 51, 17. and Aristid. 2, 278 8.
καὶ (νομίξε:») μήτε θυσίαν οὕτω λαμπρὰν, μήτε σπονδὰς κεχαρισ-
μένας, ὧν οὐχ ἥδιον ἂν εἶναι τοῖς θεοῖς, ἢ εἰ τὴν γνώμην ἐκ τῶν δυ-
νατῶν ὡς βελτίστην παρεχοίμεθα. A passage, supplying one among
the many proofs that the publication of the Gospel raised the tone
of morals among the philosophical and didactic writers of the Hea-
thens, most of whom, there is no doubt, read and profited by the
Scriptures; though very few, if any, vouchsafe to make the slightest
allusion to them: a disingenuousness worthy of such a cause as
they vainly endeavoured to prop up, by imparting to a false, sen-
sual, and worn-out religion, those spiritualities which were peculiar
to the Gospel of truth.

6. Returning to the subject of ver. 4., the Apostle
shows that, ina passage of the Old Testament, Christ
is compared with acorner-stone, and those who fly to
this stone are declared blessed. (Pott.)

6. διότι καὶ περιέχει, for περιέχεται : an hypallage fre-
quent in other verbs. Rosenm. compares Joseph.
Ant. 11, 4, 7. where Darius is said to have sent an
epistle to his Prefects, with the addition βούλομαι yi-
νεσθαι πάντα, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ περιέχει. See Raphel,
Krebs, and Kypke. In Acts 8, 32. we have 7 περιοχὴ
τῆς γραῴης. The citation which follows is from Is.
18, 16.; but it does not exactly correspond either
with the Hebrew or the Sept., at least as we now
have it. On the connection of the passage as it
stands, Commentators exceedingly differ. See Pole,
Wolf, at Pott. The passage is doubtless accommo-
dated by the Apostle. Rosenm. observes, that ac-
cording to the primary sense there is promised that
defence and security which Jerusalem would afford
to its inhabitants, and all who took refuge there from
Sennacherib. Thus Sion signifies Jerusalem; and

1 PETER, CHAP. II. 653

the stone is a symbol of security. But in a sublimer
sense, the words hold good of Christ, to whom all
should take refuge who desire eternal salvation.
Then Sion-is the Jewish nation, from which Christ
descended ; and the corner-stone is Christ.

7, 8. ὑμῖν οὖν ἡ Tin τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, “ That stone
in respect of you has a price,” i. 6. you know its
price, while you know that Jesus is Lord and Mes-
βία ἢ. Ἡ τιμὴ. Abstract for concrete ἐντιμὸς ; allud-
ing to what preceded. ᾿Απείθουσι δὲ---- σκανδάλου.
Λίβον is for λίθος ; a construction found in Matt. 21,
52. and 1 Cor. 10, 16.: or there may be an ellipsis
of quod attinet ad. See the note on Matt. 21, 42.
Now this, it is said, is made the corner-stone, on
which any one may easily stumble: for although a
corner-stone is placed in order to sustain the walls
of an edifice, yet careless passers by may stumbie
upon it, to their injury; as the Jews had done, in
stumbling at the humble birth and lowly estate
of Jesus. Ot προσκύπτουσι τῷ λόγῳ, ἀπειθοῦντες,
“those who stumble upon are those who disbelieve
the doctrine, rejecting both Jesus and his doctrine.”
Εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν, ““ unto which (disbelief) they were
destined.’ A phrase derived from the usage of
common life, by which things that happen by the
permission of God, are referred to him, as the doer
and effecter. (Rosenm.) See Whitby, Benson,
Carpz., and Pott. I would observe that the ὑμῖν οὖν
ἡ τιμὴ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν may be rendered: “ To you,
therefore, who believe, is this preciousness.” The
τιμὴ is for ἔντιμος. Of this sense there is an example
in Plut. Is. § 5. οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω τιμὴ Αἰγυπτίοις ὡς ὁ
Νεῖλος, where Reiske causelessly conjectures τίμιον.
And so ἀτιμία for ἄτιμον in 1 Cor. 2, 15. With
respect to the eis ὃ καὶ ἐτέθησαν, the above explana-
tion of it may (I think) be admitted. At all events,
it isably rescued from doctrinal perversion by the
Greek Fathers and Commentators. To the Scholiast
cited by Matt. and Slade I add Gicumen. whose ex-
position, however, is too long for me to insert.

654: 1 PETER, CHAP. II.

9. ὑμεῖς δὲ, γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνας
ἅγιον. Γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, a beloved people. ‘Taken from
Is. 43, 20., where the term is used of the Israelites.
Now it is yet more applicable to Christians. Βασί-
λειον ἱεράτευμα, “as Priests of the Great King of
Kings.” An appellation taken from Exod. 19, 6.
Sept., and applicable to Christians, as worshipping
the true God in a more excellent way than did the
Israelitish Priests of old. ὌΕθνος ἅγιον. See supra, 1,
15. Taken from Deut. 7, 6. and 14, 2. Λαὸς εἰς πε-
ριποίησιν. ‘Taken from Exod. 19, 5. where the Sept.
have λαὸς περιούσιος. |But at Malach. 3, 17. they ren-
der the same noun ΓΔ by εἰς περιποίησιν. See the
note on Acts 20, 28. “πως τὰς aperas— Gas, “That
ye should show forth (by words and deeds) the
praises of him who hath called (and drawn) you from
the darkness (of ignorance, sin, and misery,) to the
light (of knowledge, truth, and happiness).” Τὰς
ἀρετὰς, the praises, glories, exalted attributes of God;
Is. 42, 8. (in the Hebr. and Sept.) and 42, 12. ἀρετὰς
ἀναγγελεῖν. Schleus. also cites Is. 63, 7. τὰς ἀρετὰς
Κυρίου ἐν πᾶσιν οἷς ἡμῖν ἀνταποδίδωσι. (To which I
add Thucyd. 2, 40. τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀποδώσων, 1. 6. εὔνοιαν,
χάριν. Other examples from Josephus and_ the
Classical writers may be seen in Krebs. Ed.) Now
if it was the duty of the Priests to celebrate the
praises of the great God, how much more ought
Christians, whose dignity is greater than that of
those Priests. See 4, 11. Θαυμαστὸν, admirable,
worthy of all admiration. (Rosenm.) See Doddr.

10. of ποτὲ οὐ λαὺς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ, “ Who for-
merly were not ἃ people of God, but now are so; who
were not (formerly) received into favour and made
a people of God, but now have been made 50.᾽ The
words are taken from Hos. 2, 25., but accommodated
(as the best Commentators say; see Pott, Rosenm.,
and Doddr.) to the Gentile Christians. Compare 9,
25. where see the note. ‘They are, however, appli-
cable to Jewish as well as Gentile converts. ‘The
application is obvious. See Benson, Pott, and Ro-
senm., or Slade.

3"

1 PETER, CHAP. If. 655

11. The Apostle now presses on them another
admonition, namely, to abstain from lasciviousness,
that so they might remove the suspicion of immo-
rality which the Heathens entertained respecting
them. (Pott.)

The πάροικοι are those who reside out of their
country ; the raperidypo, those who are staying, or
sojourning, out of it. Others explain the πάροικοι,
private guests, as opposed to ἕένοι, public ones.
Slade thinks it appears from the next verse, and from
the whole tenour of the Epistle, that the Apostle
intends a primary reference to the state of dispersion
in which his brethren then were ; it being especially
incumbent on them to be circumspect in their con-
. duct, for the honour and recommendation of their
religion in a foreign land.. But that makes a very
frigid reason for their abstaining, &c.; and Mr.
Slade took an incorrect view of the reasoning of
Grot., from whom he adduces an extract. That Com-
mentator, and from him Pott and Rosenm. steer a
middle course between the interpretation of Slade
and the common one, by which the Apostle is sup-
posed to speak of life as a pilgrimage. The Apostle
(they say) reminds them of their situation as πάροικοι
and παρεπίδημοι in a foreign country, and also of
their like situation in this world, as compared with
the next ; and then in the next verse takes occasion,
from their situation as Christian strangers in
Heathen countries, to press on them the duty of
adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour in all
things. Here Loesn. compares Philo 5, 18 p. To
which I add Kephantes ap. Stob. Serm. 323, 49. ἐπὶ
δὲ γῆς ἀπωκίσμενον χρῆμα. Cic. de Senect. memine-
rimus nos venire in hance vitam tanquam in hospitium,
non tanquam in domum. Natura enim hic commo-
randi diversorium, non habitandi locum nobis dedit
Hebr. 11, 13. ws ξένοι καὶ παρεπιδήμοι.

11. ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν. These are
the ἐπιθυμίαι σαρκὸς at Gal. 5, 26., denoting not
only lasciviousness, but sensuality of every kind. The

656 1 PETER, CHAP. IT.

αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς assigns the reason
why, namely, since these militate against and are re-
pugnant to the welfare of their souls. Here Pott
rightly recognises a military metaphor, by which
lusts are considered as the enemies of the mind. And
he compares Marc. Anton. 2, 17. ὁ δὲ βίος πόλεμος.
He and most recent ΠΕΣ ἀψδνς ες take the Ψυχῆς
to mean mind and reason ; which however yields a
cold and frigid sense, not at all suitable to the 4pos-
tle; though it betrue that the indulgence of these
lusts is contrary to reason, and the happiness of man
in this world: in which view Wets. adduces several
Classical citations.

12, τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμών ἐν Tois—Karyy.

See the note on James 3, 13. Ἔν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “in the sight of
the Heathens, who are close observers and severe censors of your
actions,” “Iva ἐν ᾧ καταλαλοῦσιν---ἐπισκοπῆς. The ἐν ᾧ, like the
Hebr. \ws1, signifies inasmuch as, whereas. See Wets. Karadan.,
“ they calumniate.” I would point: ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, ἐποπτεύ-
σαντες δοζάσωσι: for at ἐποπτ. must be understood, not (as Rosenm.
supposes) ὑμᾶς, but αὐτὰ, 1. 6. τὰ καλὰ ἔργα ; as is clear from a
kindred passage at 8, 2. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἀγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν.
᾿Ἐποπτεύω signifies to closely inspect: so that ἐποπτεύσαντες is for
ἐὰν ἐποπτεύσωσι, i.e. upon close inspection, and severe scrutiny.
By this means (it is said) they may be led to glorify God, by which,
(I agree with Beza, Calvin, and Rosenm.,) is meant give glory and
praise to, and conteive highly of that God and religion whereof
they before thought and spoke evil of. For δοξάξειν is, as Rosenm.
observes, used of divine worship of every kind. It is strange none
of the Commentators should have cited a kindred passage in 1 Cor.
14, 25. where, after a similar dissipation of Heathen prejudices, it
is added: καὶ οὕτω, πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον, προσκυνήσει τῷ Θεῷ, ἀπαγ-
γέλλων ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ὅντως ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστι. Now in this passage the
προσκυν. expresses that first and faint kind of worship which suc-
ceeds to some conviction of the truth.

As to the ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, of this phrase, the sense is much
controverted. See Pole’s Synopsis; and Benson or Slade. Some
understand by it the day of judgment. But, as Benson says,
it plainly denotes something in this life. Others, as Whitby
and Mackn., take it of the time of persecution. Schleus. Grot.,
Benson, and Jaspis, of the infliction of divine punishment. (See
more in Grot. and Benson). But that dees not suit the ddéae.
The two best founded interpretations seem to be, 1. that of Wolf,
Hamm., Raphel, Carpz., Slade, &c., who take it to allude to perse-
cution (see the details in Slade) ; 2, that of Pise., Calv., Menoch,
Est., Ger., Beza, Doddr., Pott, and Rosenm., who interpret:
«when God shall mercifully visit them with a conviction of the
truth and blessings of the Gospel.” The very same expression

1 PETER, CHAP. 1]. 657°

occurs, and in the same sense, at Luke 1, 66,78. 7, 16, 19, 44. Acts
15, 14. Now this is surely quite agreeable to the context ; nor is it’
(I think) open to any serious objections ; for such 1 cannot consider
those of Benson and Slade.

13, 14. The Apostle now proceeds to illustrate the
general precept of ver. 11 and 12. by the particular
duties to be observed among the Heathens both by
Jewish and Gentile Christians. (Pott.)

13. ὑποτάγητε. A passive in an hithpahel, or reci-
procal, sense, ““ subject yourselves.” aon ἀνθρω-
πίνῃ κτίσει, “to every institution or ordinance of
man,” i. e. every political institution. A sort of He-
braism, Rosenm. observes, from N23, ordinare, Sir.
38, 12. And so the Latin creare magistratum. ‘The
ἀνθρ. signifies that which is constituted by men, by
which is meant government, or those by whom it is
administered, as kings, governors, and magistrates in
general; for, ina popular sense, the κτίσις will apply
to all. Now on this interpretation the antients and
nearly all the moderns are agreed. Yet Pott objects
that this sense of κτίσις is devoid of authority. And
he would take πάση ἀνθο. xr. to mean “ all men.”
But this is liable to far more serious objections.
Compare similar admonitions in Rom. 13, 1. and
ΤΊ» 8, 1.

13. διὰ τὸν Κύριον, “ out of regard to the injunc-
tion of the Lord,” (at Matt. 22, 21.; see also Matt.
17,27.) This had probably been given in Peter’s hear-
ing ; but if not, it could not fail to come to his know-
lege. Βασιλεὺς js, by the usage of the Greek and
Hebr. (So csbn), used to denote the Imperator
Romanus, because he enjoyed that absolute power
which centered in the βασιλεὺς and J. “Yrece-
χοντι, Sovereign Lord. By the ἡγεμ. are denoted
provincial governors of every class, chiefly the
Legati Cesaris, or the Proconsuls. See more in Pott
and Rosenm., or the works on Roman Antiquities.
Av αὐτοῦ πεμπομένοις, “ sent out by him (i. 6. Caesar)
and deputed to govern.” This, Rosenm. observes,
is mentioned, that in case of civil commotion they

VOL. ὙΠ 2u .

658 1 PETER, CHAP. II.

may know to whom obedience is primarily due.”
The words εἰς ἐκδίκησιν μὲν κακοποιῶν, ἔπαινον δὲ ἀγαθο-
ποιῶν advert to the only legitimate end and purpose of
all regular government, (see Rom. 13, 3 and 4.) ;
though there have been in all ages exceptions. So,
in an interesting citation from Ulpian adduced (from
Lardner) by Benson, government is defined to be the
power of punishing evil doers, facinorosos homines.
Now if any governors fail in their bounden duty, by
not punishing evil doers, or by evil treating those
that do weil, they must answer for the crime in ano-
ther world, and meet the consequences even in this.

15. ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ τὸ θέλημια τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀγαθοποιοῦντας
Φιμοῦν τὴν τῶν ἀφρόνων ἀνθρώπων ἀγνωσίαν. ᾿Αγαθο-
ποιεῖν often signifies to confer benefits ; here it simply
denotes well doing. ipodv, to reduce to silence, 1. e.
to leave them nothing to object. A frequent signi-
cation in the New Testament. See Schleus. Lex. or
Wahl. ᾿Αγνωσίαν, i. e. objection arising from igno-
rance or prejudice. ᾿Αφρόνων, foolish, without know-
ledge of the religion they revile.

16. ὡς ἐλεύθεροι---Θεοῦ. ᾿Ελευθ. free, viz. from
vices; as Joh. 8, 33 and 36. Rom. 6, 18 and 22.
The Christians, too, were free from the yoke of the
Mosaic Law, and from the necessity of worshipping
the gods of the Gentiles. But the Jews affected
political liberty; saying that God was their only King:
whence St. Peter adds: καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐπικάλυμμα ἔχοντες
τῆς κακίας τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, “not making use of your
Christian liberty as a cloak for evil (i. e. sedition), as
some Jewish Christians did, who expecting a politi-
cal kingdom, visible on the earth, were apt to suppose
Christians to be free from all public laws, κυριότητα
ἀθετοῦντες, as says Jude (Rosenm. from Benson).
᾿Επικάλυμμα, cloak, pretext to shroud secret and evil
designs. ‘Qs δοῦλοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘as bound to the ob-
servance of the divine laws ;” and thence subject to
those whom God orders us to serve. For it is the
will of God that there should be magistrates whom
we may obey.

1 PETER, CHAP. II. 659

Dye πάντας τιμήσατε, “ Honour all,” i. 6. to whom
honour is due; as Rom. 13, 7. A general injunction,
afterwards explained by its species. Try ἀδελφότητα
ἀγαπᾶτε, “love the Christian fraternity.” Abstract
for concrete. (Rosenm.) Τὸν Θεὸν φοβεῖσθε. This
term in Scripture unites the kindred notions of
reverence and obedience. It is also included in
τιμᾶτε. Pott. here cites Soph. Aj. 653. and Arta-
banus ap. Plut. ἴῃ Themistocl. p. 125. Ἡμῖν δὲ πολλών
νόμων καὶ καλῶν ὄντων, κάλλιστος οὗτος ἐστι" τὸ τιμᾷν
βαοίλέα; καὶ προσκυνεῖν εἰκόνα, Θεοῦ, τοῦ τὰ πάντα σώ-
Sovros.

18. οἱ οἰκέται, ὑποτασσόμενοι---σκολιοῖς, Now since
the conduct of Christian servants or slaves would be
likely to influence the opinions of their superiors
respecting Christianity, it therefore became a matter
of importance; and hence the injunctions of St.
Peter and St. Paul.

The article οἱ stands for the pronoun ὑμιεῖς 5 aS
often in St. Paul’s Epistles. The οἰκέται are supposed
to be the domestic slaves. but the term might
include freedmen acting in the capacity of domes-
tics. At ὑποτασσόμενοι must be understood ἐστε.
Ἔν παντὶ φόβῳ, “ with all reverence and submission.”
Πᾶς expresses the highest degree of any thing. Sxo-
λιοῖς, literally crooled, and, ina metaphorical sense,
awkward, per verse, morose, χαλέποις, δυσκόλοις.

19. τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις, “¢ for αὐτὸ γὰρ χάρις, 561], ἐστι,᾿
says Pott, who also observes that the words admit of
various senses ; but he finally acquiesces in the fol-
lowing: ‘‘ For this is acceptable (to God), and con-
ciliates his favour.” A sense required by the ποῖον
γὰρ κλέος at ver. 20., and on which both the antients
and the best moderns are agreed. Here Θεῴ must
be understood, which is expressed i in some MSS. (by

a gloss) ; literally, “for this is a favour laid up with
Gad: and will be rewarded by him. The διὰ συνείδησιν
Rosenm. explains, ‘‘ from his consciousness of what
he owes to God.” Pott takes it to mean the meus
conscia Numinis. The former ἀντ, ae γος seems

ου

660 1 PETER, CHAP. II.

preferable; but the expression may be explained
with Schleus., “‘ ob religionem quam Deus postulat.”
(So Rom. 13, 5. ἀλλὰ καὶ dit τὴν συνείδησιν,) “ from a
principle of religion, to do the will of God, and dis-
charge that duty.” And so Theodoret. λΔύπας is for
τὰ λυπηρὰ, grievances ; as Gen. 3, 16.

20. ποῖον yap κλέος--οὐπομιενεῖτε, “* For what praise
is it, if ye be roughly treated for your faults, ye
bear it patiently ?”? Κολαφίϑεσθαι may denote the va-
ous modes both by words and actions, by which
slaves were chastised for ill conduct. ᾿Αγαθοποῖειν
must denote “discharging your duty.” Kal πάσ-
χοντες, ‘and yet suffer ill treatment.” At the former
ὑπομενεῖτε must be understood κολαφίϑεσθαι, at the
latter πάσχειν, both taken from the context. Pott
adduces Senec. de benef. 4, 11. :

21—23. The Apostle now supplies them with a
strong motive to this obedience, appealing to the
example of Christ, for their imitation, who bore
keener contumelies, and more grievous sufferings with
unshaken constancy. (Pott.)

21. εἰς τοῦτο yop ἐκλήθητε, “ For to this purpose,
and on this condition, ye were made Christians, that
ye should follow the footsteps of Christ, and bear all
trials for conscience sake. Ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν----
αὐτοῦ, “ Christ suffered for your sake, and for your
salvation, not for his own advantage.” ὙὙπογραμμὸς
signifies properly a faint chalked outline for a painter
to fill up, or a slight model for an architect to go
by: but it denotes, ina general way, an exemplar,a
copy. ‘The word is adduced from Polycarp and
Clem. Rom. by Schleus. Lex. Of these passages the
former is an imitation of the present one. :

Q2. ὃς ἁμιαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν---αὐτοῦ, These words
(which are trom Is, 53, 9.) simply signify, “ who
sinned neither in word nor deed, who suffered with-
out having committed any crime.”

23. ὃς λοιδορούμινος----δικαίως. See Matt. 26, 63 and
68. 27, 12, 29 and 39. seq. Παάδχων οὐκ ἠπείλει,
“ when suffering ignominy, stripes, nay crucifixion,

1 PETER, CHAP, II. 661

uttered not a minatory or objurgatory expression.”
᾿Αντιλοιδορέω 15 arare word. At rapadidov there is an
ellipsis, which most antients and moderns supply by
κρίσιν, ΟΥ τὴν ἀιτίαν αὐτοῦ. See Benson. Others, as
Beza, Bos, and Pott, understand ἑαυτὸν. And this
they might have supported from the wor ds, ** Father,
into thy hands I commit my spirit.” ‘The sense is
much the same.

24. ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ----ξύλον. ‘Apaptia stands for
the punishment of sin; as Joh. 9, 41. 15, 22 & 24.
Acts 22, 16. ᾿Αναφέρειν 1 is a stronger term ‘for φέρειν.
"Ext τὸ ϑύλον, “at,” or “on, the cross.” No passage
can more emphatically declare the glorious doctrine
of the atonement (the key-stone of the Gospel) than
the present, on which I can only refer the reader to
the admirable note of Whitby.

Ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμιενοι, τῇ δικαιοσύνη ϑήσω-
μεν, ““τῃδὲ we being freed from the dominion of sin,
might live unto righteousness,” i.e. perpetually ex-
ercise ourselves therein. So Rosenm., from Beza
and Schmid. But it is far better, with the antients
and, of the moderns, Wolf, Raphel, &c. and recently
Pott and Slade, to take aroy. in the sense de (by an
euphemism), which is frequent in Herodotus. See
examples in Raphel, Krebs, and Wets. ‘This is also
confirmed by Rom. 6, 2 & 10. ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ.
and 6, 11. νεκροὶ εἶναι τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, i.e. wholly abstain
from sin. Οὗ τῴ porwr αὐτοῦ iadyre, ‘by ul ονα
stripes and miseries your wounds are healed,”
ye obtain salvation. ‘Taken from Is. 53, 6. Mainad
properly signifies a pinch, and the bruise and smart
resulting.

25. ἦτε yap ws πρόβατα πλανώμενα----μῶν. From
Is. 53, 6. The sense is: “For ye were as stray
sheep, without pasture, exposed to peril, and with-
out protection.” A fine image of complete misery,
and utter destitution. The comparison of disciples
with sheep is frequent. See Pott’s examples. Clas-
sical. passages in illustration of the propensity of
sheep to wander are very numerous. See the Phi-

662 1 PETER, CHAP. 11. IL.

lologists. ᾿Ἐπεστράφητε, “ye are returned.” ᾿Επί-
σκοπὸν τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. ‘* Now the ἐπισκ. τῶν ψυχῶν
(annotates Rosenm.) takes care of the souls, as the
shepherd does of the sheep.” ‘The καὶ is explicative.
Here there is a mixture of the image and the thing
compared: and ἐπισκ, is added, to explain how
Christ is our shepherd. On this passage see the note
of Mackn. or Slade.

CHAP, III.

Ver. 1, 2. From hence to ver. 7. follow the duties
of wives to husbands, and husbands to wives.

1, αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτασσόμεναι. Hereagain we have the
participle forthe verb, and the article for the pronoun.
In the ἰδίοις there isan Hebrew pleonasm. See 1 Thess.
2,14. and Eph. 5, 29. Benson, however, thinks it
has some force. By the subjection here enjoined is
meant such as is agreeable to the customs and Jaws
in force in any country. Yet the term never autho-
rises more than ready and willing obedience, not
slavish subjection. In which view Rosenm. cites
Joseph. Ant. 1, 49, 8. (of the maidens of Leah and
Rachel) δοῦλαι μὲν οὐδαμώς, ὑποτεταγμέναι δὲς On
the inferiority of the female sex Joseph. adv. Ap. 2.
(cited by Pott) shows that the Mosaic law speaks
decidedly. ᾿Αναστροφῆς, scil. καλῆς, ‘ virtuous con-
duct.” ”Avev λόγου, ““ without (further) proof, argu-
ment, or exhortation.” For such fruits of the Gos-
pel supply a tacit, but powerful proof of its benefi-
cial tendency, and a popular argument for its truth.
And (as Benson remarks) indeed in all times and
places, the way to recommend religion is not so
much to talk of it, as to dave according to one’s pro-
-fession. See the whole note. Κερδηθήσωνται, “ may
be gained, or won over.” So Matt. 18, 15. ἐκέρδησας
τὴν ἀδελφόν σου" and 1 Cor. 9,19. Of course, it is
nearly equivalent to σώξειν, “put in the way of sal-

1 PETER, CHAP. III. 663

vation.” That Christian wives were often such, we
find even from Liban. (cited by τοὶ} “ῬΊΟΝ
quales feminas habent Christiani!”

Q. ἐποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμών.
These words are exegetical of the preceding. The
sense is: ‘* when they see your chastity, respectful
obedience, and other virtues.” At ἐν φόβω some, as
Pott, subaud Θεοῦ.

8. ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὃ ἔξωθεν, ἐμπλοκῆς Τριχών, καὶ περι-

/

θέσεως χρυσίων, 7 ἐνδύσεως ee κόσμος. Compare
a kindred passage at i Tim. 2,9. "Epa. τρίχων, i. 6.
the curling, plaiting, ard other ornamental disposi-
tion of the hair, like the πλέγματα, braids, locks, οἵ
the above passage. ‘The τὰ κρυσία are explained by
Rosenm. of all the ornaments of female attire; and
he cites from Demosth.: χρυσία καλὰ ἔχουσαν, καὶ
ἱμάτια καλὰς And he remarks (after Kypke) that
as περιθέσεως is united, the youve. must especially
mean head ornaments, all of which, as we find from
Pollux 5, 16. were of gold; and sometimes the hair
was powdered with gold dust.” So Philo 689. (cited
by Pott.) πε “ΠΕΣ, τὸν κλῆρον, ὡσάνει κόσμον ἔξωθεν.
To the acm I would add, that these head orna-
ments are only specimens of the kind of κόσμος 6 ἔξω-
θεν, which is to be made subservient to the inner
adorning.

On the various female ornaments, as combs, bracelets, necklaces,
and a hundred other such ornaments, of which some conception
may be formed from a passage of Isaiah on this subject, and the
various articles dug up at Herculaneum and Pompeii, this is no
place to treat, though I have noted down a vast number of curious
passages. I shall, however, just introduce such as relate to the
ornaments for the hair. Most of my readers will remember the
Virgilian ‘‘crines nodantur in aurum;” and “ crinem—implicat
auro.” That gold was very antiently worn in the hair we find from
Hom. 1]. 8. $72. Herod. 1, 82. and Thucyd. 1, 6. χρυσῶν τεττίγων
ἐνέρσει κρωβύλον ἀναδούμενοι τῶν ἐν κεφαλῆ τριχῶν. Sometimes
in the form οὗ ἃ crown: as we find from Artemid. 2, 9, where see
Reisk. So also Joseph. 626, 30. καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν κεκοσμήμενος τῇ
συνθέσει τῆς κόμης᾽ and 908, 42. This wearing of gold in the hair
was, however, especially in use among prostitules. So Pollux 4,
153. ἡ δὲ διάχρυσος ἑταῖρα, πολυν᾽ ἔχει τὸν κρυσὸν ἐπὶ τῇ κώμῃ. And
from Tabula sexta Instit. Justinian 10. we find that the lawyers

664 1 PETER, CHAP. III.

wished to confine it to them. The words are as follows: *‘ Aurum
et pietas vestes matrone non Sestant, sed tantum meretrices."" We
may, however, suppose that these jurisconsults were not very suc-
cessful in their attempts to legislate for the regulation of female
attire. I can only refer to a beautiful and true sentiment in Phi-
lostr. Imag. p. S23. where for ἀειδῶς 1 conjecture ἀηδῶς, And 1
must conclude with the following pretty passage in the Precepta
nuptialia of Naumachius: Μὴ ov πότε χρυσῷ περιμάνεο, pyr’
ἐπὶ δειρῆς πορφυρέην ὑάκινθον ἔχοις, ἤ χλωρὸν ἴασπιν. Χρυσός τοι
κόνις ἐστι καὶ ἄργυρος᾽ οἱ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ λῆες ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνι πολυψηφῖδι
θαλάσσης" where I would observe the Poet seems to have had in
view Eurip. Hec. 154. παρθένον ἐκ χρυσοφόρου δειρῆς.

4. ἀλλ᾽ ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καοδίας ἄνθοωπος---πολυτελές.
The ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς καρδίας ἄνθρωπος is the same with
the ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of St. Paul, Rom. 7, 22., the mind,
heart. At ev ἀφθάρτῳ must be understood κόσμῳ,
Here internal and mental is put in opposition to ex-
ternal ornament; 4. d. ‘* Vests easily fade, and wear
out; but the internal ornament is ever during.”
(Rosenm.) It isin the words of the Poet,

«* A wreath that cannot fade, of flowers that bloom
With most success when all beside decay.”

It is well observed too, by Bens., that “ἃ great part
of religion consists in the government of the pas-
sions, and regulating the temper of the mind: and
such a dress of the inward man is incorruptible.
Whereas the richest ornaments will wear out and
perish.”

4. τοῦ πρᾳέος Kal ἡσυχίου πνεύματος, ‘a meek and
quiet disposition.” This sense of πνεῦμα occurs also
in 1 Cor. 4, 21. and Gal. 6,1. The Θεοῦ is empha-
tical, involving an opposition to the preference too
often given to external over internal excellences.
And yet meekness and a quiet spirit (as opposed to
a petulant and pragmatical one) is much lauded in
the Classical writers.

5. οὕτω yop πότε καὶ αἱ ἅγιαι γυναῖκες ---ἑαυτὰς. By
the ἅγιαι γυναῖκες are meant the wives of the Patri-
archs, of whom we read in holy writ. Ai ἐλπίϑουσαι
ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν, a periphrasis for “true worshippers of
God.” Ὑσοτασσόύμινοι, ‘as being also in subjection

1-PETER, CHAP. III. 665

(and were also in subjection), how much more ought
Christian wives ?”

6. ὡς Σάῤῥα ὑπήκουσε τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ,, Κύριον αὐτὸν κα-
λοῦσα, “ Thus, for example (ὡς being for οὕτως),
Sarah was obedient to Abraham, calling him Lord,”
S778, Gen. 18, 12. Which is noticed in the Rabbi-
nical writers. Ὑχσακούειν is here used for ὑποτάσ-
σεσῦθαι. Elsn., Wets., and Pott prove from Plut. 2,
252 Β. and Aristoph. Ep. 565., that the Greek wives
called their husbands κυρίους ; nay, as we find from
Eurip. Med. 223. Hal. 578. and Ach. Tat. 309.,
δεσπότας. And they might have added that the
Roman wives called their husbands dominos, as I
think we may infer from Virg. An. 4, 214. Con-
nubia nostra repulit, ac dominum Aineam in regna
recepit; and4,10. Phrygio servire marito. This ex-
treme subjection seems to have been kept up longest
in the East, where customs never change; but was
early laid aside in the hardy countries of the North ;
for from the Germania of ‘Tacitus it appears that the
situation there of wives differed little from what it
is in civilized countries of Europe at the present
day ; except that the former might be said to have
more open power, the latter more secret influence.

As to the names by which husbands are to be
addressed by their wives, the Apostle’s words are
not to be supposed authoritative. Reverence and
obedience are the bounden duty of wives ; and the
expression of this, as being made in terms purely
conventional, may very well vary with manners and
customs of different ages. See the note on Matt.18,17.

The words ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι; καὶ μὴ φοβούμεναι μηδεμίαν πτοίησιν,
are somewhat obscure, and have been variously interpreted. By
some, as Gatak., they are understood of voluntary and uncumpul-
sory subjection. But this is harsh. See other interpretations
stated and refuted in Bens, and Pott. Some there are (as Doddr.
observes) who think this clause is suggested as an argument to per-
suade them to do well, that they would be preserved from those
alarms and terrors which a perverse and rebellious contest with
superior power may bring with it, and which would indeed prove

as injurious to their peace as to their character. Rosenm. explains:
“si recte agetis, nullis perterritee minis," nempe maritorum infide-

666 1 PETER, CHAP. 111.

lium, si forte ad abnegandam fidem religioni datam vos cogere
vellent. I should prefer, with Est. and Calvin, to understand it of
a firmness and intrepidity of character which would be necessary
to support their religious independence, when united to Heathen
husbands. The πτοίησιν is well explained by Calvin of that weak
timidity which fosters causeless fear, and is too often found in the
female sex.

7. The Apostle now treats on the duties of hus-
bands. Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ yywou.
Ὁμοίως is for πάλιν or ὡσαυτῶς: Zuvoixely signifies to
live in wedlock, including all conjugal duties and
offices. ‘To detail the Heathen notions of marriage,
as compared with those of the Gospel, were here out
of place. Κατὰ γνῶσιν, i.e. in a manner suitable to
that superior knowledge (as enlightened by the
Gospel) which they possess over the Pagans. Bens.
and Pott take it for ἐν γνώσει, “ prudently, discreetly,
and indulgently ;” as 2 Cor. 6,6. And the latter
compares it with other adverbial phrases formed by
κατὰ and a substantive.

7. ws ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες
τιμὴν.

Σκεύος, like the Heb. "23, signifies properly “‘ something made
for use, an utensil.’ Hence it is generally supposed to designate
the wife, as the utensil, or, tool for serving the purposes of the hus-
band. And so, they remark, Aristotle calls the wife the ὄργανον of
the husband. I cannot, however, help thinking, that as σκεῦος
simply signifies any thing made, so it may here only mean a creature.
Thus the sense will be, that ‘‘ woman is the weaker creature.” And
so, | find, Benson. In proof of the fact we need not the operose
citations of Wolf, Schoettg., and Wets. With respect to the words
ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν; they seem meant to further explain the former.
It is plain that the sense of τιμὴ, (as being a very extensive term,)
must be determined by the context and the subject: and the best
Commentators, from Bp. Hall to Slade and Valpy, are agreed that
it must here denote that indulgent care and respect which is shown
to valuable but fragile articles; as Lib. Mus.: Sicut honor quidam
habitur crystallinis, quia sollicité tractantur ; and honorare uxorem
is used by many Rabbinical writers. See Schoettg. and Wets. And,
besides other examples of ἀπονέμειν (tribuere) τιμὴν, they cite
Epict. 62. τιμῶνται at γυναῖκες ὑπὸ τῶν ἄνδρων. But there the
term is used in its proper sense. ‘They might have more aptly cited
Philo 2, 36, 9. (of Abraham with respect to Sarah) διὰ τὴν τιμὴν
ἥν ἀπένειμε τῇ γαμέτῃ. Eurip. Troad 735. ὦ φιλτατ᾽, οὐ πέρισσα
τιμηθεὶς τέκνον & Orest. 449. παῖδ᾽ ἀγκαλαῖσι περιφέρων, τιμῶν τε.
Eurip. Med. 657. φίλους τιμᾷν, And so Rom. 12, 10. τῇ τιμῇ

1 PETER, CHAP. III. 667

προηγουμένους ἀλλήλους, where it denotes the duties of benevolence
and courtesy.

It is then added, to further show why they should be thus respect-
fully and indulgently treated (and not despotically, as if naturally
inferior and without souls), that they are fellow-heirs with them of
the grace of life and salvation, and destined to the same future feli-
city. A further reason is added in eis τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσ-
εὐχὰς ὑμῶν (for such appears to be the true reading, instead of the
ἐκκόπτ. Of many MSS., Versions, and Fathers), namely, that mutual
disagreements indispose the mind for that heartfelt prayer which
can alone be effectual, and draw down a blessing from the God of
peace. ᾿Εγκόπτειν signifies to cut off any one’s course, and conse-
quently to hinder, impede it. As to the var. lect. ἐκκοπτ, it only
denotes cutting our, and destroying. Now the former is the only
suitable sense. Many examples are adduced, by Schoettg., of si-
milar expressions in the Rabbinical writers; as: ‘* Num preces
quedam abscinduntur ?” There may be (as Doddr. thinks) an al-
lusion to social or family prayer, for which such dissensions greatly
unfit Christians.

8. The Apostle now, from hence to ver. 13., gives
some general directions, which concerned all the
Christians ; exhorting them to mutual affection and
concord; and toa kind treatment of all men, even
of their enemies and persecutors, as the most likely
way to soften them, and to obtain the Divine appro-
bation. (Benson.)

To τέλος is usually rendered denique, finally. But
the discourse does not draw toa conclusion. The
context seems to require the version of Erasm.,
Vatab., Zeger, Grot., Bens., Rosenm., and Pott, in
summd, summatim. So the Classical ἐν κεφαλαίῳ
Rosenm. refers to Num. 31, 37—41., where it is
used to address the Heb. 23. And he adds that
after the particular duties, as of children, servants,
wives, and husbands, the Apostle subjoins those
which concern all the classes. ᾿Ομόφρονες denotes
mutual concord. Svpradeis, ‘ have a kind of sym-
pathy in each other’s sorrows ;” as Rom. 12, 5 & 15.
1 Cor. 12, 26. Heb. 10, 33 & 34. Φιλάδελφοι, see
1, 22. and the note there. This denotes benignant
courtesy. Others, indeed, read ταπεινοφρόνες, which
most Critics prefer. But the common reading, (I
agree with Bens.,) seems the more suitable to the

668 1 PETER, CHAP. III.

context. Nor do I see in what it is difficult to ac=
count for the diversity.

.. 9. μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ --- κληρονομήσητε.
See Rom. 12, 17. and the note. And on εὐλογοῦντες
see Matt. 5, 44. Eis τοῦτο ἐκλήθητε, ἵνα εὐλογίαν κλη-
ρονομήσητε, ““ For to this end were ye called, that ye
should obtain a blessing, i.e. every sort of felicity ;
therefore it behoves you to wish and pray for bless-
ings upon others.” _ |

(10. ὃ γὰρ θέλων ϑωὴν ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ ἰδεῖν ἡμέρας ἀγαθὰς
---δόλον. By the last words εἰδότες ὅτι---κληρονομήσητε
being put in ἃ parenthesis, the connexion here will
be clearer ; for on the words λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας
the Apostle engrafts an exhortation to curb the
tongue (in expressions borrowed from Ps. 34, 13
& 14. Compare the words with the Heb. and Sept.).
Rosenm. would read, with the Syr., 6 γὰρ θέλων δωὴν,
καὶ ἀγαπῶν ideiv, &c. And this is plainer, and more
agreeable to the Sept.: but as there is no authority
for it, it seems to be a mere emendation. ‘The
Apostle appears to have blended the two clauses into
one: and we may render: “ he that would fain
enjoy life,’ &c. A sense also (I find) assigned b
Mackn.; and, though I know no authority for it, it
seems to be required by the context; the words
being exegetical. Παυσάτω, stop, repress. The pri-
mary sense of παύω and which often occurs in the
Classical writers. Kaxod, reviling. Δόλον, falsehood.
On this passage see an apposite Rabbinical citation
in Rosenm., and the note of Doddr. .

11, 12. ἐκκλινάτω ἀπὸ κακοῦ----αὐτὴν, Taken from
Ps. 34., with a change of person. Ζητησάτω εἰρήνην,
“‘ strive after peace and concord.” Διώκειν imports
strenuously endeavouring to attain at.

12. ὅτι of ὀφθαλμοὶ Κυρίου---κακά. The 664. sug-
gests intent observance and watching over; and éra
implies readiness to hearken to their petitions. Com-
pare Joh. 9, 31. James 5, 16. 1 would also subjoin
an elegant passage of Herodian, 7, 3, 7. ἦν δὲ καὶ τοῖς

1 PETER, CHAP, ILI. 669

ὠσὶ κοῦφος ἐς διάβολας. The πρόσωπον is intended,
(per anthropopathian), to set forth more strongly the
displeasure of the Lord against evil doers; since by
this expression anger is denoted. ᾿Επὶ, against them,
i.e. for @pir punishment and destruction; as, in-
deed, is added in one MS. and the two Syriac Ver-
sions, but from the margin.

13. The Apostle now subjoins some further in-
ducements to a virtuous and holy life. (Pott.) Kat
τίς ὁ κακώσων ὑμᾶς, ἐὰν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μιμηταὶ γένησθε ;
** And who (ordinarily) will harm you, if ye be fol-
lowers of what is good and right? Few or none.”
᾿Αλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι, “ But
even if ye suffer in the cause of virtue, or of your
religion.” (Matt. 5,10) This, as Rosenm. observes,
is a reply to an objection, that magistrates would
harm them even for what was good. Μακάριοι,
‘‘ happy are ye.” ‘There seems to be a reference to
the words of our Lord, Matt. 5, 10.

14. τὸν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε, μηδὲ ταραχθῆτε.
These and the words following Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὺν-----
ὅμων are from Is. 8,12 &18. Φόβος here is for φοβη-
τρὸν, terriculamentum; as Rom. 13, 3. See also
Jude 23. and the examples of Pott, to which I add
Artemid. 3, 66. p. 301. Athen. 316 ε. Liban. Or.
Parent. 9, 106. fin.

15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν,
«ς Dominum Deum sancte colite.” ἊἜν ταῖς καρδίαις
Rosenm. renders, animo candido, sincero. But this
is too feeble. It rather means (according to the
antients and most moderns), to themselves, in their
secret retirements, and for their private comfort
under all circumstances, whether prosperous or ad-
verse. To this the Apostle adds: ἕτοιμοι δὲ (scil.
ἐστε) πρὸς ἀπολογίαν, Where Rosenm. supplies ““ reli-
gionis vestre.”’ But that is not necessary; since (as
Pott observes) πρὸς ἀπολογίαν is put for εἰς τὸ δοῦναι
λόγον. Ifthere were any ellipsis, I would supply τῆς
ἐλπίδος, from ἐλπίδος just after, which Rosenm. in-

670 1 PETER, CHAP. III.

terprets religion ; referring to Acts 26, 7. But in
both cases it is a needless refinement.

Now the reply is directed to be made μετὰ πρᾳῦ-
Tyros καὶ φόβου, “so that ye do it meekly and re-
spectfully, not in an insulting, contempt@us, dog-
matical spirit.”

16. συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαθήν, “ Taking care to
have a good conscience.” “Iva ἐν ᾧ---κακοποιῶν, ‘So
that in that whereof they speak against you, as evil
doers, they who thus calumniate your virtues and
Christian behaviour may be ashamed.” Compare a
kindred passage at 2, 12.

17, 18.. κρεῖττον γὰρ ἀγαθοποιοῦντας---κακοποιοῦντας.
The Apostle here, by a tacit prolepsis, comforts the
Christians under the injuries of the profane, by an
argument derived from the will of God and the ex-
ample of Christ. Κρεῖττον, preferable. ‘The sense
may be thus expressed : ‘* He who suffers for crimes
can expect no recompense; but he who suffers for
God may look forward to a great one with confi-
dence.” "Ors καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε,
4. d. ““1΄ Christ suffered for us who were then evil,
how much more should we be prepared to die, or
suffer tribulation, for the glory of Christ and the
edification of Christians.” “Iva ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ
Θεώ, “ that he might reconcile us unto God, and
make us acceptable worshippers.” For as προσέρ-
χεσῦθαι Θεῷ signifies to worship God, so προσάγειν
signifies to render any one fit to worship him [li-
terally, “ to introduce any one to the throne of
God ;” a metaphor taken from Courts. Edit.] With
respect to σαρκὶ and πνεύματι, they are variously in-
terpreted. ‘The latter term sometimes denotes soul :
but σὰρξ often signifies the human nature; and then
the πνεῦμα will be the divine spirit, the divine nature

of Christ. Accordingly, some explain: “ he was

put to death in respect to the body, but preserved
alive in respect to the soul;” the term ϑωοποιεῖν.
(they observe) often signifying not only vivificare,

1 PETER, CHAP. III. 671

but also, like the Heb. NWN, in vitd conservare.
Others : “he died in respect to his human nature,
but was recalled to life by his divine spirit,” i. e. by
the divine energy that was in him. ‘ Now σὰρξ
(say they) very frequently denotes humility, huma-
nity. Then πνεῦμα denotes majesty, and, as the
subject is of Christ, the divine essence of Christ.
Thus πνεῦμα αἰώνιον is ascribed to Christ, Heb. 9, 14.,
as well as, ch. 7, 16., δύναμις ϑωῆς ἀκαταλύτου. But
the context seems to require τὴν σάρκα to be inter-
preted body; and τὸ πνεῦμα, animum; with this
sense: “ Christ, in respect to the body, was, indeed,
put to death, but in respect to the mind he was
preserved alive.” (Rosenm.) And so Michaelis and
Bp. Middleton: “ carnally dead, but alive spiri-
tually ;” which is supported by most of the antient
versions. See also Bp. Horsley’s Serm. 30. And
this appears, upon the whole, to be the true sense :
though several objections are made by Mr. Slade on
the score of want of authority,” &c.

19, 20. ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς
ἐκήρυξεν.

This passage is thought to present great difficulties, which the
Commentators attempt, in various ways, to remove. Some resort
to critical conjecture, which merits no attention, or (as Lord Bar-
rington) to an almost equally precarious mode of interpretation, on
which no dependance can be placed; as when Beza, Elsn., and
Mackn, suppose that the words ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι do not mean
that the spirits were in prison at the Ume when Christ preached ta
them ; but that he preached by his spirit to the antediluvians, who
are now (i.e. in the age of Peter) in prison. And Beza and Bens.
think that the Apostle proposes this example to their brethren, to
deter them from being corrupted by those around them. The latter
explains the expression, “‘ the custody of death,” or ““ the state of
the dead.” Which may possibly be the sense; and it is preferable
to that assigned by Hamm., Whitby, Wells, &c., who understand it,
figuratively, of the being in bondage to sin, Is, 42, 7. 49, 9. 61,
1&2. But both the foregoing interpretations are liable to many
objections, some of which have been well stated by Mr. Siade, who
also justly excepts to the interpreting πνευμ. persons,or men, Very
harsh and far-fetched is the exposition of Pott, which is detailed by
Rosenm., and highly censurable is the remark: “ Petrus Christum
apud inferos tanquam κηρύσσοντα sibi fingit,” because, forsooth, it
had been the custom of the wise so to do, in compliance with the su-
perstition of the vulgar, that great men, after death, pursue the same

672 1 PETER, CHAP. III. -

plans and purposes as when on earth; as, for instance, Hercules,
Agamemnon, Achilles, &c. This is surely in the worst spirit of the
New School; and the arrogance is only equalled by the folly of it.
To me no interpretation seems at all natural, or to carry with it
the stamp of truth, but the common one, namely, that Christ went
and preached (or rather, proclaimed his kingdom) to the antedilu-
vians in Hades. And this is supported by the united authority of
the antients and the soundest of our modern Commentators. (See
(CEcumen., Cyril, and Scho]. Matth.) Even Rosenm., acknowledges :
‘‘ Videtur Petrus docere, Christum etiam post mortem corporis,
quoad animum a corpore separatum, et in ἅδην delatum, continudsse
negotium docendi et religionem tradendi, in quo peragendo vitam
suam in his terris consumserat.” The words certainly involve no
difficulty ; and the plain and natural sense is not to be rejected
because it contains matter of wonder, or what is little accountable,
to us with our present faculties. Man (as Mr. Slade says), on this
point, is not an adequate judge ; the subject lies entirely beyond the
reach of his knowledge: and we may apply to this case the remark-
able words of St. Paul, τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ σωφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἐστι, 1 Cor. 1, 25. He also cites some excellent remarks from Bp.
Horsley, Serm. 20., the whole of which deserves attentive perusal.
See also Bp. Pearson on the Creed, p. 228. In the words following
ἀπειθήσασι πότε---ὕδατος there is no difficulty, if for ἅπαξ ἐξεδέχετο
we read ἀπεξεδέχετο, with many MSS. of different recensions. ‘The
common reading is justly supposed to have been a mere conjecture
of Erasmus. ᾿Απεκδέχεσθαι denotes long and patient waiting. Ἢ
τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμία, for ὁ Θεὸς μακροθυμῶν. Eis ἣν is said to be
for ἐν 7. But it is a frequent phrase. The sense is: ‘‘ into which
a few (i.e. eight) persons (embarking) were saved through the
nater.”” The διὰ, Rosenm. says, is for ἐν. But we may compare
the expression σωθήσεται διὰ πυρὸς at 1 Cor. 3, 15.

21, 22. ᾧ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον, &c. “ The antetype
to which ark (namely, what corresponds to, and was
figured by it, i.e. by the preservation in it of Noah
and his family) doth now save us, as the ark did them
(I mean), baptism, which, it must be remembered,
is not merely the putting away the filth of the flesh
(by material water), but the answer of a good con-
science towards God. For some read ὃ, i.e. the
water : which, in the end, produces the same sense ;
but less regularly. ᾿Επερώτημα, Rosenm. observes,
signifies, properly, an interrogation, and then an en-
gagement resulting from it, a stipulation, promise.
“ Now in baptism (continues he) the minister used
to put the interrogation: ἀποτάσση τῷ Σατανᾷ; To
which the candidate answered, ἀποτάσσομαι. Again

1 PETER, CHAP. III. IV. 673

he interrogated : συντάσσῃ τῷ Χριστῳ. Ans.: συν-
τάσσομαι. ΒΥ συνείδησις is meant what we are “ con-
scious of,” our internal per ceptions and feelings. The
ἐπερώτημα συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς εἰς Θεὺν will therefore
be the ἐ. σ. . &c. Oew ποιηθὲν, the promise made to
God that we will live righteously and_holily, that
we may have a conscience void of offence towards
xod. This Tertullian calls the sponsio salutis. Δι᾿
ἀναστάσεως ᾽']ησοῦυ Χριστοῦ. This must be referred to
owSe. The sense is: ‘ Baptism, and sincere pro-
fession of religion conjoined with it, preserves us
from perdition, and procures us a hope of eternal
felicity, because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ ;
for from thence we also conceive a hope of our own
resurrection.” (Rosenm.) See the note of Carpzov,
and also Whitby, Benson, and Mackn., or the ex-
tracts in Slade. With the coved. ayas. I would com-
pare Herodian 6, 3, 9. τῆς ἀγαθῆς συνείδησεως τὸ
θαῤῥαλέον.

The remaining words ὅς ΠΥ ΕΟ τ are suffi-
ciently plain. On δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ see the note on
Rom 8, 34. And on ἐξουσιῶν καὶ δυνάμεων see the
note on Eph. 1, 21.

CHAP. IV.

This Chapter consists of fwo parts. In the jerst
(ver. 1—12.) is contained an exhortation to a holy
life. In the second St. Peter fortifies the Christians
against the persecutions which they were suffering
for religion’s sake. (Rosenm.) Having told them,
ch. 3, 17., &c., that if it was better to suffer for well-
doing than for wickedness, and enforced it by the
example of Christ, who suffered death for others, but
is now exalted to glory, he here returns to the same
subject, recommending it to them to imitate Christ
in his holiness as well as his sufferings. And, to
prevent the bad effects of the reproach which was
thrown upon them by their old acquaintance, who
continued in idolatry and vice, he puts them in mind

VOL. VIII. ΦΧ

᾿
.

674 1 PETER, CHAP. Iv.

of a righteous judgment to come, when they should
be rewarded, and their enemies punished. (Bens.)

Verse 1,2. Χριστοῦ οὖν---ὀπλίσασθε. The ἔννοια
signifies the feelings, dispositions, &c.; and the
sense is: ‘© Arm yourselves with the same feelings
for patiently bearing the evils of this life, and the
impending persecutions for religion’s sake.” Ὅτι ὁ
παθὼν ἐν σαρκὶ, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, “ for he who suffers
in the flesh usually ceases to sin, and abstains from
it.’ See Rom. 6,7. On the benefits of adversity,
and especially if borne patiently, in promoting piety
(and, as Gray says, “leaving us leisure to be good, )”
not only the sacred writers treat, but also the pro-
fane ones. And the experience of every age con-
firms it. See Gray’s beautiful Ode to Adversity.

The words following are closely connected; and
the sense, according to the best Critics, is: ‘* so as
no longer to live conformably to the lusts of men,
but to the will of God.” See Carpzov. and Rosenm.
The εἰς τὸ signifies ita ut, soas. ᾿Ανθρωπ. must be
taken (as κόσμος often is) to denote men of the world,
ungodly persons, Βιῶσαι θελήματι Θεοῦ is well ex-
pressed by Doddr. in his celebrated epigram: “1
live to pleasure while I live to thee.” See Rom. 6,
ΤῸ 11.

3. ἀρκετὸς γὰρ---κατεργάσασθαι, “" Suffice it for us,
for the time past of our life, to have practised the
things to which the Heathens are prone.” The
words following πεπορευμένους ἐν ἀσελγείας are added
exegetically, Ἡμῖν is for ὑμῖν, per κοίνωσιν, and to
mitigate the severity of the censure. Κατεργάσασθαι,
practise, perpetrate ; for the term is mostly usedina
bad sense. Πορεύεσθαι, like the Heb. 77n, denotes ha-
bitual action. ’Eibupiais, lusts. Οἰνοφλυγίαις “ beastly
drunkenness ;” since οἰνοφλὺξ literally denotes one who
vomits up wine, like Polyphemus in Homer’s Odys.
On κώμοις see Rom. 13,13. Πύτοις, i. 6. συμποσίοις,
drinking parties, which, even though not extending
to drunkenness, are blameable, as fending to it in
the end. ᾿Αθεμίτοις εἰδωλοτρείαις, ““ abominable ido-
latries.”’ Now since the Jews are usually supposed

| PETER, CHAP. lV. 675

to have been, in this age, not chargeable with zdo-
latry, many Commentators, as Whitby and Doddr., -
think the Gentile converts only are here addressed.
But there is no change in the form of address ; and
therefore it seems preferable, with Grot., Hamm.,
Rosenm., and most recent Commentators, to under-
stand it, not of idolatry itself (of which Benson
rightly asserts that the Jews, as a body, are no where
charged either by Christ or the Apostles), but of a
participation in it (or the guilt of it) by imitating
some of the customs at the Gentile idol feasts, or
sometimes partaking of these, or frequenting games
in honour of the Heathen gods; or, at least, eating
of meats offered to idols; and, in a general way,
falling into idolatrous manners and heathen morals.
Now, from the close connection of the Jews with
the Greeks and other Heathens, they had, we know,
imbibed many of their opinions, and adopted many
practices which partook of idolatry. Of all which
Josephus and Philo supply abundant evidence. And
of the horrible corruption of Jews, as well as Gen-
tiles, no one who has read the histories of that age
can doubt.

4. ἐν ᾧ Eevigevrar—Paracdypowres. Mackn. ren-
ders the ev ᾧ “ on account of your former life.” But
this sense seems not well founded. Nor can I ap-
prove of the wherein of our common version, which
occasions a pleonasm. Preferable is the sense as-=
signed by Dind., en respect to which. But perhaps
it is rightly taken by Pott for ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Eevigovras
ὅτι, “ they wonder at this, namely, that,” &c. The
ἐν w is for ὑφ᾽ οὗ ; as in a passage of Josephus, cited
by Kypke. And so Rosenm. ξξενίϑονται, “ they
are amazed, surprised.” A signification found in
Joseph., Polyb., Plut., and the Greek Fathers. See
Elsn.,‘Wets., Krebs., and Kypke. Itis, by Rosenm.,
derived from the admiration with which guests and
strangers view houses, public buildings, &c. for the
first time. Συντρεχόντων, ““ rushing eagerly with them
up to the same srk of profligacy and corruption ;”

2 Koz:

676 1 PETER, CHAP. IV.

‘for such is, by Wets., Pott, and Rosenm., supposed
to be the sense of ἀνάχυσιν, colluviem. The term
denotes, properly, the act of out-pouring; and then,
the place of emptying, &c. Τῆς ἀσωτίας. This de-
signates every kind of intemperance and corruption,
literally sottishness. See Wakef. on Eurip. H. F.
967. And it qualifies the ἀνάχυσιν. Baaogdyp. in-
cludes both bitter railing and every kind of mockery.
Now it is very natural men of this description should
so act; for, to use the words of a writer from whom
we should little expect such a reflection (Petron.,
cited by Wets.), qui vitiorum omnium inimicus rec-
tum iter vitse coepit inspicere, primum propter morum
differentiam odium habet ; quis enim potest probare
diversa ?

5. ol ἀποδώσουσι λόγον τῷ ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι κρῖναι ϑών-
τας καὶ νεκρούς, for ἀλλ᾽ ἀποδωσ., Pott says. At τῷ
ἑτοίμως ἔχοντι kK. must be understood ἑαυτὸν, The
phrase ἑτοίμως ἔχειν signifies ‘to be prepared, to be
about to .do;” as Acts 21, 13.2 Cor. 12, 14. and the
best writers. It here does not import, as Rosenm.
explains, the having full power, but the fully in-
tending ; and is used to show the absolute certainty
of the action. This will not, therefore, prove that
the Apostle was in immediate expectation of the
judgment.

After all Benson’s refinements, the ϑώντας must
mean τοὺς ἔτιϑώντας, those (then) alive; as the vex-
povs, those already dead. So Rosenm.: ‘* tunc vic-
turos, quam veniet, et preemortuos,”’ 1. e. omnes om-
nino homines. Benson interprets the vexp. figura-
tively, i.e. ““ dead in trespasses and sins.” Wets.
explains, “ those who have died for the Gospel.”
Mackn. understands by the gavras καὶ νεκροὺς the
Jews and Gentiles.

0. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Kal νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, ἵνα---πνεύμιατι,

The sense of these words is somewhat obscure; and therefore
the context is so much the more carefully to be attended to. Now
if this be done, I see not how the interpretations of those (as Whitby,
Bens., Doddr., &c.), who take vex. in a figurative sense, can be to-

lerated. Yet understanding it in a physical one (conformably to
the interpretation of the word adopted in the preceding verse), the

1 PETER, CHAP. ly. 677

perplexing question is, how the Gospel can be said to be preached
to the dead? ‘This, as Wets. observes, is no where asserted in
Scripture. And he might have added, that it is contradictory to the
tenour of Scripture. For it is as certain that the Gospel is not
preached to the dead, as that the dead do not perform any acts of
religion. So Ps. 115,17. ‘‘ The dead praise not thee, O Lord, neither
all they that go down into silence.” To obviate this, some, as Slade,
comparing the passage with 3, 19., understand the Apostle to assert
that the Gospel had been preached, or proclaimed, even to the dead
᾿ (καὶ νεκροῖς), that they will be judged by the law of nature for the
things done in the body, and be rewarded, in proportion to their
deserts, by a spiritual life, according to the will and power of God.”
But this is too harsh to be admitted. Others, as Jensius, Carpz.,
and Rosenm. would take εὐηγγελίσθη to denote the announcing of
good news. Whether this sense can be admitted, I would not ven-
ture to say: but be that as it may, νεκροὺς must (I think) be inter-
preted as in the preceding verse; and it involves the least difficulty
to suppose, with the above mentioned Commentators, as also Wets.
and Jaspis, that it is meant of those who, being Christians, have
died for the profession of the faith. ‘The general sense is thus ex-
pressed by Rosenm.: ‘‘ Even to those who in these times have suf-
fered death, was brought the glad annunciation, that although they
-had suffered death in the flesh, yet by the divine omnipotence they
shall be made alive.”

The ἵνα is eventual. And κρίνεσθαι σαρκὶ is a phrasis pregnans,
or two phrases condensed into one, for, ‘‘ be capitally. condemned,
and suffer execution in the body.” Κατὰ ἀνθρωπους signifies, us
far as concerns, at the hands of men. ‘The κατὰ is used in confor-
mity to the κατὰ in κατὰ Gedy.

7. From the consideration of the awful event just
adverted to, the Apostle proceeds to exhort them to
the practice of sobriety, and regular constant prayer;
enjoining withal mutual love, hospitality, and a
right use of their spiritual gifts.

7. πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικε. The expression τέλος
πάντων, is thought to involve some difficulty ; since,
if taken in its natural import, as denoting the end
of the world and the final consummation of all
things, it will show that Peter was informed as to
the period of that awful event. To obviate this,
many, as Schoettg. and Mede, interpret it of the de-
struction of Jerusalem. But (as Doddr. observes)
those to whom the Apostle was writing were little
concerned with such an event. (See, however,
Mackn.) Others, as Cicumen., explain τέλος, the

678 1 PETER, CHAP. IV.

issue of the prophecies concerning that event.
Which is liable to the same.objection: and of ré-
των, according to either interpretation, no satisfac-
tory account can be given. Rosenm. would supply
ἀνθρώπων, and take the words to express this senti-
ment, ‘ The life of all men is short.” But that 15
so arbitrary a method, and yields a sense so precari-
ous and, a prima facie, improbable, that it cannot
be thought of.

Upon the whole, the first interpretation seems
preferable to either of the two others. (See Grot.
and Germ.) But there is noreason why we may not
understand the expression (with Doddr. and others,
as at James 5, 9. ἡ παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου ἤγγικε,) of that
particular and personal consummation of all things,
which takes place at the death of every one. See
Bp. Horsley’s Serm. 1, 11 & 111. and the note of
Slade.

7. σωφρόνήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς τὰς προσευχάς, “ be
sober-minded, and watchful in the exercise of
prayer ;” literally, be vigilant for the exercise of
prayer, and to preserve a sober-mindedness of cha-
racter. Both necessary to support the life of God
in the soul of man. See 1 Thess. 5,6 & 8. and the
note there. The above signification of νήφειν is rare:
yet I have noted down the following example. Plut.
adv. Stoic. § 19. νήφων πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὐδὲ ἐστι.

8. πρὸ πάντων δὲ τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενὴ
ἔχοντες. Here, as often, the participle is for the
finite verb. Πρὺ πάντων, imprimis. See the note
on James 5, 12. ἔχειν ἀγάπην seems a popular
phrase for παρέχειν, exercise. ‘Kaurods is for ἀλλής-
λους ; as often. ’Exrevy, intensive, fervent. See the
note on 1, 22.

On the interpretation ef the words following, ὅτε ἡ ἀγάπὴ κα-
λύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, Commentators differ. Some {and especi-
ally the Romanists) explain: ‘ charity shall procure us pardon for
a multitude of sins.” But (as Doddr. observes) it would be mon-
strous to imagine, that acts of liberality to the poor can procure
the pardon of sin, while men continue in a course of impenitence
and unbelief; for by this the whole Gospel would be subverted.

1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 679

Rosenm., explains thus: “ Amicitia et charitas proximo condonat,
quicquid condonari potest. Deinde etiam ecs, quos sincere amamus
a peccatis abstrahimus; cui consequens est ut Deus hominis jam
emendati priora peccata dissimulat.” But this seems scarcely taking
a right view. The sense (as required by the context) is plainly
this: ‘‘ For (this) affectionate feeling will cover and cause us to
forgive a multitude of offences in others.” So Prov. 10, 12., which
the Apostle had doubtless in view: ‘* Hatred stirreth up strife, but
love covereth sins ;’’ or in the words of the Christian Poet,
«Tis gentle, delicate, and kind,
To faults compassionate or blind.”’

Thus καλύψει will be, as Hardouin says, for condonat. See Plut.
Vit. Pomp., cited by Valpy from Weston ap. Bowyer. To which I
add a yet more apposite passage from Procop. 129, 12. ἐνθυμεῖσθε
ὡς φιλία μὲν αἰτίας πολλὰς καλύπτειν πέφυκεν, ἐχθρὰ δὲ οὐδὲ τῶν
σμικροτάτων. As to the passage of James 5, 20., to which most
Commentators here refer, it is not of the same nature. Though,
however, the above must be considered as the only correct inter-
pretation of the words, yet it is not to be denied that the exercise
of this virtue will (in the words of Doddr.) “ entitle us, by divine
mercy, to expect forgiveness for numberless slips and failings. For
(as he adds) where acts of charity towards the souls and bodies of
men spring from an inward principle of love to God, and faith in
Christ, with that humble regard to his atonement and righteousness,
which every true Christian will have, it cheerfully encourages our
hopes of finding many merciful allowances from God in our final
account with him.” See the note of Slade. Finally, to use the
words of Sherlock, Dis. 6, Vol. 3. (referred to by Weston) Charity
is the assistant part of that repentance to which the promises of life
are made in the Gospel.

9. φιλόξενοι εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄνευ γογγυσμών. See Rom.
12, 13. Hebr. 13, 2. and notes.

10. ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβε χάρισμια--- χάριτος Θεοῦ.
Here, as on many other occasions, the antients and
most moderns explain χάρισμα of the spiritual and
supernatural gifts vouchsafed to many of the primi-
tive Christians. Others, as Grot., Est., Rosenm.,
and most recent Commentators, take it of any fa-
culty or endowment of mind. But though that may
be included, yet the other sense is, I doubt not, prin-
cipally intended; as appears not only by the con-
text, but by the term itself, which has usually that
force; asin 1 Tim. 4, 14. and the three celebrated
chapters of 1 Cor. 12, 13 & 14. on those χαρίσματα.
See the excellent note of Bens. At the same time,
from the words immediately preceding, I cannot but

680 1 PETER, CHAP. Iv.

suspect (though the Commentators do not notice it)
that the Apostle also intended those temporal gifts,
natural or acquired (including those of fortune), for
which we are equally stewards, and have to admi-
nister for the good of others.* And this Gicumen.
includes.

11. εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια Θεοῦ. “If any one (for
instance) has the gift, and feels an impulse to teach
and preach, let him speak as (one speaking) the
oracles and doctrines of God and Christ (and there-
fore true), and not mere human notions and inven-
tions.” Such, I conceive, is the real and complete
sense; and it is supported by the Syr. and other
antient Versions. See also Bens., and his remarks
on the λόγια. The ὡς is not (as Rosenm. supposes)
redundant. On λαλεῖ, see the note on 1 Cor. 14, 27.

11. εἴ τις διακονεῖ, &c., “If any one exercise the
office of Deacon, let him do it (heartily) as out of
the full strength which God supplies.” Or, as Ben-
son says, this clause may be filled up in like manner
with the former one. Now the Deacon’s chief,
though not sole, business was to attend to the care
of the sick, and the relief and sustenance of the
poor ; for which reason, the Commentators say, the
younger persons were selected, and to which there
is an allusion in the ἰσχύος. But this seems too fan-
ciful. At ἐν πᾶσι we may either understand ἀνθρώ-
ποις, With reference to both the orders just mentioned,
and all other Christians; or πράγμασι, denoting the
actions of such persons: or it may relate to both.

The doxology which follows is by Ben., Wets.,
and most recent Commentators, as Slade, Rosenm.,
and Pott, referred to God the Father; as at Gal.
$95: Rom. 15295), 11,536) OCor, 114 3814 But asd
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ seems here to mean by the religion of

* In which view I would compare Eurip. Pheen. 565. Οὔτοι ra
χρήματ᾽ ἴδια κέκτηνται βροτοὶ, τὰ τῶν Θεῶν δ᾽ ἔχοντες ἐπιμελούμεθα"
ὅταν δὲ χρήξωσ᾽ ἂν ἀφαιροῦνται πάλιν, and Phocylyd. ἔ, 2, 7.
οἰκονόμος τ᾽ ἀγαθὴ. :

1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 681

Jesus Christ, the Gospel, whose manifestations have
been above adverted to, I cannot but agree with
Grot. and Doddr. in understanding it of Christ.
And Grot. aptly compares a very similar acclamatio
ad Christum at | Tim 4, 18. Κράτος, empire, domi-
nion ; as the Hebr. ty is sometimes rendered by the
Sept. δυναστεία.

12. From hence to ver. 19. the Apostle exhorts
them patiently to endure afflictions in the cause of
Christianity; especially employing two arguments:
1. That the more the trials are which we have borne
on earth, after the example of Christ, the greater
will be our reward (ver. 13). 2. That afflictions
suffered for conscience sake are no longer to be
accounted such (ver. 14. fin.). Now those for whom
the Epistle was meant seem to have been exposed to
many and fierce persecutions; since to these the
Apostle again and again reverts. (Pott.) The ar-
guments are thus stated by Benson. “ It was not,
the Apostle hints, a strange or unusual thing for the
people of God to be persecuted. 2. Though they
suffered here, as Christ did, they should hereafter
be glorified together with him. 8. Besides the pros-
pect of that future glory, they had, at present, the
spirit of God for their support and comfort. 4. That

~it was an honour for any one of them to suffer, not
as a malefactor, but asa Christian. 5. Though af-
flictions began with the Christians, yet the weight
of the storm would fall on the unbelievers.

12. μὴ ξενίξεσθε τῇ ἐν ὑμῖν πυρώσει πρὸς πειρασμὸν
ὑμῖν γενομένη. The construction is thus laid down
by Rosenm.: Μὴ ξενίξεσθε (ἐπὶ) τῇ πυρώσει γινομένη
ἐν ὑμῖν πρὸς πειρασμὸν ὑμῖν, 1. 6. ὑμῶν. The literal
sense is: ‘* Be not surprised (and therefore troubled)
by, or through, fire for trial (i. e. the severe perse-
cution permitted, for your trial) which ye now suf-
fer. The words ὡς ϑένου---συμβαινόντος, are exege-
tical of e2. In the πύρωσις εἰς πειρασμὸν there is
an allusion to the qucestio; a torment by fire. So

682 1 PETER, CHAP, IV.

Joseph. Val. 4, 469. (Transl. Whist.): “and they
made them pass the fiery trial.” Polyb. 22, 3, 7. οἱ
γὰο καίροι τὴν καίρον τὴν ἐκ πυρὸς βάσανον πρόσήγον. See
also 33, 9, 8.

18, ἀλλὰ καθὸ κοινωνεῖτε---ἀγολλιώμιενοι. ““ But
rather as ye participate in the sufferings of Christ,
rejoice; that at the time when his glory shall be
revealed, ye may (indeed) exultingly rejoice.” Kai-
νωνεῖν τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασι, signifies (as Rosenm.
explains) not only to bear similar sufferings with
Christ, but for a similar cause, even that of religion.
Pott compares James 1, 2. Hebr. 10, 34. Acts 5,
11. 2Cor. 1, 7. See also Tanchuma ap. Shoettg.
The ἵνα is eventual. On the ἀποκαλ. ᾿Ιησοῦ see 1,
7 & 13. In yap. ἀγαλλ. there is a sort of Hebraism.

14. εἰ ὀνειδίϑεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι--- ἀναπαύεται, “Τῇ ye
suffer reproaches in the cause of Christ, happy are
ye: for the spirit of glory and God (or a glorious
and godlike spirit) resteth upon you, resideth in,
shews itself in you.” Ἐν ὀνόματι for ἕνεκα Xpior.,
“ for the sake, or in the cause of Christ and his re-
ligion.” On the τὸ τὴς δόξης Θεοῦ, Commentators
variously speculate. The above seems to be the
best founded interpretation. We have the genitive
for the cognate adjective, by Hebraism. As to the
reading δυνάμεως, it seems to be a gloss. The ἐφ᾽
ὑμᾶς ἀναπαύεται alludes to a spirit imparted from the
Deity, by which such things are effected, and which,
as Pott acknowledges, is that by which Christians
were supposed to be enabled both to lead a holy life
and to work miracles. It is then added: κατὰ μὲν
αὐτοὺς βλασφημεῖται, κατὰ δὲ ὑμᾶς δοξάϑεται, “on their
part, as far as regards them, He (1. 6. the Spirit, or
God) is blasphemed and reviled, but as far as re-
gards you, he is celebrated and praised.” ‘They
(paraphrases Rosenm.) reproach your constancy and
fortitude as superstitious pertinacity, but you by that
very thing evince your reverence to God, who has
imparted that spirit.”

1 PETER, CHAP. IV. 088

1ὅ, 10. μὴ γὰρ τις ὑμών πασχέτω ὡς Φονεὺς, ἢ κλέπ-
της, ἢ κακοποιὸς, ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος. ‘The γὰρ re-
fers to a clause omitted: ““ Misunderstand me not;
for I speak not of suffering in a bad cause. Let no
one (I enjoin you),” &c. This is preferable to taking
the yep for οὖν, with Rosen.; or in the sense only,
with the Syr. Πασκ. A forensic term, signifying
“suffer what the law adjudges.” Kakorojos. A gene-
ral term, which may be rendered, ‘or as guilty of
any other misdemeanour.” The sense of ἀλλοτριοε-
πίσκοπος is not so easy to determine. Cicumen. and
most moderns explain it, ‘‘ a busy body in other peo-
ple’s affairs.” Others, “ἃ censorious person,” which
may be included in the former. But this is by some
thought hardly consistent with the racyérw. Hence
Schleus. and others interpret it as an Hellenistical
phrase to denote an utterly vicious person, a man |
Jaden with vices. But for this the authority is very
weak. The same may be said of the exposition of
Pott. and Rosenm., ‘‘ one who lays snares for others,
arebel.”’ But these two last interpretations involve
far more difficulty than the common one. It is
surely not unreasonable to suppose, that there might
then be laws inflicting some actual punishment on
those convicted of busily prying into other people's
affairs, and, as is almost always the case, exaggerat-
ing what may be true, and fabricating falsities, to
their great injury. This interpretation, too, is
much confirmed by 1 Tim. 5, 13. where St. Paul
seems to have had in view this same vice of tittle-
tattling and back-biting, in the words περιέργοι, λα-
λοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα. ‘Thus, I think, it is clear that
the words περίεργος and ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος are as
nearly as may be of the same sense: the first mean-
ing a busy-body; and the latter a busy-body in
others’ affairs: which affinity (though it scarcely
needs the confirmation of Classical authority) is evi-
dent from Philostr. Epist. Apollon. 59. μὴ περίεργος
ἧς, οὐκ ἂν ἐν ἧς τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις mpaypaos δίκαιος, “if you
had not been a busy-body, you would not have been

684 1 PETER, CHAP. iy.

a judge in other men’s affairs.”” See Eurip. Hip. 785.
and Markl. in loc. ;

16. εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανὸς. Χριστιανὸς occurs only
thrice in the New Testament; Acts 11, 36. and the
present passage. It appears that now the name had
become thoroughly established. ’Ev τῷ μέρει τούτῳ,
“on this account (as 2 Cor. 3, 10. 9, 3. Col. 2, 16.)
namely, that ye have been thought worthy to suffer
afflictions for Christ’s sake.”

17. ὅτι 6 καιρὸς TOU ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα ἀπὸ τοῦ οἴκου
τοῦ Θεοῦ, “ For the time is at hand for judgment, and
to commence with the people of God” (i. e. Chris-
tians). See Slade. Κρίμα is variously interpreted :
but from the context the common interpretation
judgment may very well be supported. By this is
meant (as Rosenm. explains) 450, Dei constitutio,
de immittendis scil. adversis, namely, for the purpose
of purification, trial, and example to others. So
Benson says it designates the particular distress that
was to take place before Jerusalem should be de-
stroyed. The Christians were to expect to feel some
of the first effects of that general calamity. It was
to begin with them, as our Saviour had plainly pro-
phesied. It was God’s way of old to begin with
sending calamities on his own people.” See his _re-
ferences.*

17. εἰ δὲ πρῶτον ἀφ᾽ yay, τί τὸ τέλος τῶν ἀπειθούν-
τῶν τῴ τοῦ Θεοῦ εὐαγγελίῳ; “ If we Christians be
first afflicted,” &c. Τέλος, end, i. 6. lot. The sense,
then, is: “ what will become of the wicked?” It is
hinted that they will utterly perish. No obscure
prediction of the ruin which overwhelmed the Jew-
ish state a few years after.

18. καὶ εἰ ὃ δίκαιος μόλις σώϑεται, ὃ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρ-

* Schoettg. here aptly adduces from ἃ Rabbinical passage:
«‘Poene nunquam perveniunt in mundum, nisi impii in eo sint.
Vertin non incipiunt, nisi ἃ justis primdm.” And a little further
on: ‘‘ Quando potentia datur perditori, nullam ille inter justos et
impios differentiam observat : neque hoc tantum sed a justis pri-
mtim incipit,” Compare Jer. 10, 7. Ps. 68, 36.and see Wets.:

1 PETER, CHAP. IV. ν. 685

τωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται; A happy amplication of the sen-
timent from Prov. 11, 31. Sept. ‘The sense is: “ If
the righteous be with difficulty snatched from evils,
what shall be the lot of the impious and wicked ?”
The interrogation involves a strong negation, and
implies, (as Rosenm. says) utter perdition. Similar
sentiments are adduced from the Rabbinical writers
by the Commentators. On cwg. see Benson and
Slade.

19. ὥστε kal οἱ πάσχοντες---ἀγαθοποιΐᾳ, “ Where-
fore let those who suffer according to the will and
permission of God, commit their lives and souls unto
him, as unto a faithful and benevolent Creator, con-
tinuing in well-doing.” ‘The ψυχὰς most Commen-
tators explain themselves, by Hebraism. But Benson
well defends the common interpretation souls. It
may mean their dives, their souls, and every thing
that concerns both. [ΠΙιστῴ, veracious, true to his
promises. So Benson explains it: who may be de-
pended upon, as one of sufficient power, wisdom,
and goodness, to make all things conduce to the
good of the pious ; and particularly to raise them to
ahappy immortality. This promise he had made to
them in the Gospel, and they might trust to him for
the performance. ᾿Αγαθοποΐα is variously explained :
but it must be taken in its most extensive sense,
well doing of every kind. See also 1 Pet. 2, 14, and
2,15.

CHAP. Vie

Much depended on the conduct of the Bishops or
Pastors of the Church, especially in time of persecu-
tion. The Apostle therefore recommends it to
them to behave in a becoming manner, and take
particular care of the flocks committed tothem ; and
to their people, to behave well to them; and finally,
he expects al/ to behave well mutually to each other.
(Benson. )

Ver. 1. πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐν ὑμίν----κοινωνὺς. By the

686 τ | PETER, CHAP. ν.

πρεσβ. are meant both the heads of congregations
(teachers, ver. 2.) and others employed on the go-
yenment thereof. The συμ. like the Latin cum, im-
ports community in office; as in numerous words.
It is observed by Benson and Mackn., that if Peter
had been the Prince of the Apostles, he would, in
this place, and in the inscriptions to his two Epistles,
have assumed the high prerogative ; and would not
have used the language he here does. ‘Though that
may be partly accounted for from condescension and
humility. ;

1. μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθημάτων, ‘an eye-wit-
ness of the sufferings on the resurrection of Christ
from the dead.’ All this, Benson has shown, 15
involved in the sense of the expression. See his
long and excellent note, and consult his references.
By apartaker of the glory to be revealed must be un-
derstood, with Whitby and Benson, a partaker then
in the pledge or earnest of the glory yet to be re-
yealed, the first fruits of the Spirit, the miraculous
gifts of the Spirit. See more in Benson.

2. ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, A com-
mon pastoral metaphor, by which leaders of any kind
(kings, teachers, and priests,) are compared to shep-
herds. The sense is: ‘ Nourish with sound doc-
trine, and superintend the morals of those committed
to your care.” My avayxacres, “not as if it were a
burthen, or as if ye were constrained.” I suspect
that this has reference to some who served the office
without stipend, but with indifference and want of
zeal. Μὴ αἰσχροκερδώς, ἀλλὰ προθύμως, “ not dis-
charging the office for the sake of the lucre (which
would be base), but with good will, toto corde (as
the Syr.), and only accepting the lucre, to enable you
to discharge the office.”

3. μηδ᾽ ὦ κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλήρων. As Θεοῦ is
not in the original, Doddr. deserts the Common Ver-
sion, and renders as if it were an ellipsis of ἑαυτῶν."
But though Θεοῦ be not expressed, yet it is plainly to
be supplied both from the subject and.the context ;

I PETER, CHAP. V. 687

for at the ποιμνίου just: after, it must be understood.
With respect to the κλήρων, this is variously ex-
plained; by Dodwell and Whitby, of the possessions
of the Church; for which signification there is suffi-
cient authority; but little probability in the thing
itself; though Slade thinks, that as there were con-
tributions, there might be a fund. But considering
the poverty of the primitive Christians, and other
circumstances, that is not likely. Now κατακυριεύον -
Tes κλήρων, in the simple diction of the Apostle, can
only apply to persons: and the Commentators have
well shown how it arose that Christian congregations
came to be called God’s heritages. See Grot., Bens.,
Rosenm., and Doddr., or Slade.

3. τύποι, examplars, i. e. (as Rosenm. explains) :
“do yourselves what you enjoin on others,” con-
trary to the custom of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Matt. 23, 3 and 4.

4, καὶ φανερωθέντος τοῦ ἀρχιποιμιένος, κομιεῖσθε τὸν
ἀμαράντινον τῆς δόξης στέφανον. Pavep., “shall ap-
pear; as Col. 3,4. ΓΑρχιπ. Called at Hebr. 13. τὸν
μέγαν ποιμένα. On kousg. see 1, 9. With the ὁ τῆς
δόξης στεφανὸς (a glorious crown,) Rosenm. com-
pares Sir. 43, 11. κάλλος οὐρανοῦ δόξαι ἄρτρων. There
is an agonistical metaphor, which may be illustrated
from Eurip. Hipp. 73. πλεκτὸν στεφανὸν ἐξ ἀκηράτου
λειμῶνος. Soph. Aj. 465. στέφανον εὐκλείας. Eurip.
Suppl. 315. στέφανον εὐκλείας λαβεῖν and Antiop.
frag. 4. See also Biset on Aristoph. Lysist. 875 F.
The whole image is an expressive designation of per-
petuity. See Benson.

5. ὁμοίως νεώτεροι ὑποτάγητε πρεσβυτέροις, ““Τη like
manner ye people, submit yourselves to your teach-
ers.” Such is the sense assigned by the best Com-
mentators, and which seems required by the context,
not “ younger persons, submit yourselves to the
elder.” Rosenm. compares Luke 22, 2. where 6
μείϑων and ὁ νεώτερος are similarly opposed. I would
here adduce a fine sentiment of Aristid. 1, 431 ¢.

688 1 PETER, CHAP. V.

εἰδότας ἐστιν οὖ, Kal Array νίκης εὐσ χημονεστέραν οὖσαν
καὶ πλείονος ἀξιαν.

5. πάντες O€, ἀλλήλοις ὑποτασσόμιενοι, τὴν ταπεινοῷρο-
σύνην ἐγκομβώσασθε. ᾿Εὐγκομιβοῦσθαι is derived from
κόμιβος, which signifies primarily a knot, top-knot,
topping, (and hence our comb; as a cock’s comb) :
Qdly, what we call a bow-knot or button, and other
ornamental fastening by which vestments are drawn
about any one; and 3dly, the vestment itself. It is
observed by Fischer de Vit. Lex. p. 18. and Schleus.,
that ἐγκώμβωμα denotes a short jerkin (or rather, I
should suppose, something like our moveable capes),
put over the other garments, and fastened by knots
and bands to the collar. Hence ἐγκομβούῦσθαι came
to mean, in a general way, to be clothed: and as all
sorts of clothing are, in the antient languages, ap-
plied to denote moral habits, especially of virtue ; so
here the Apostie means, that they should put on
humility as as ornament, and wear it asa habit. And
this seems to be all that it is necessary to be kept im
view ; for to enter into all the argutie of the Com-
mentators (on which see Pole’s Syn. and Wolf) were
to little purpose. Schleus. compares 2 Macc. 7, 5.
ἀγριωτέραν ἐμπεπορπημένοι ὠμότητα. ‘Lo which I add
fElian V. H. p. 10. ἠμπείχετὸ δὲ σωφροσύνη, and Hom.
I]. a. 149. ἀναιδείην ἐπιεμένε, where Heyné remarks:
* Dicitur aliquis indutus, ἢ. 6. instructus, esse 115
qué ipsi propria sunt et solennia.”

6. ταπεινώθητε οὖν ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα τοῦ Θεοῦ,
&c. Christians are here exhorted to wholly submit
themselves to the governance of the Lord. ‘‘ Now
(observes Rosenm.) they submit themselves to God,
who acknowledge, and habitually feel, their total de-
pendence on him to whom they owe every thing,
who acquiesce in his will, and bear patiently the evils
of this life, who do not perversely resist his Provi-
dence, and who finally expect every thing good
from the power of God.” Κρατ. χεῖρα, like the Hebr.
ΓΡῚ my in Exod. 3, 9., signifies mghty power. ᾿Ἐν

1 PETER, CHAP. V. 689

καιρῷ, “ at his own time, at the proper season.” In
some MSS. is added ἐπισκοπῆς. But that was evi-
dently foisted in from 2, 12.

7. πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιῤῥίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν. A
further designation of this submission. ᾿Επιῤῥίψαι,
I conceive, is here a vox pregnans, for ἀποῤῥίψ. and
ἐπιῤῥίψ., 1. e. casting off all anxious cares and soli-
citudes, and reposing them on God and his Provi-
dence.” This is taken from Ps. 55, 23. Compare
Matt. 6, 25 and 80. Αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμιών, “ for
with him rests the care of you, and your concerns.”
Pott refers to Matt. 22, 16. Mark 12, 14. Joh. 10, 13.
12, 6., and compares Matt. 4, 25 and 30. 6, 25. and
also M. Anton. 4, 31. τὸ δὲ ὑπόλοιπον τοῦ βίου διεξέλθε,
ὡς Θεοῖς μὲν ἐπιτετρόφως τὰ σεαυτοῦ πάντα ἐξ OARS τῆς
ψυχῆς. ‘To which I add Soph. Electr. 178. where
there is the following fine sentiment ; θάρσει μοι, θάρ-
wet, τέκνον" "Ears μέγας οὐρανῷ Ζεὺς, ὃς ἐπορᾶ πάντα καὶ
κρατύνει" ᾧ τὸν ὑπεραλγῆ χόλον νέμουσα, K. τ. A. and
Eurip. Phoen. 717. ἀλλ᾽ εἰς Θεοὺς χρὴ ταῦτ᾽ ἀναρτή-
σαντ᾽ ἔχειν.

8—11. In this final admonition Christians are ex-
horted to constancy in their profession, in spite of
the evils with which they were encircled. (Pott.)

8. ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμών διάβολος. As διάβολος has no
article, many recent Commentators render it a mali-
cious accuser. But the words ἀντιὸ. and διάβ. are to
be closely connected; and I entirely agree with Bp.
Middleton, that the sense is, ‘‘ your opposing evil
spirit,” i.e. the evil spirit who is your opposer.
There is supposed to be an allusion to Job. 1, 7.
where Satan is similarly designated. ᾿Αντίδικος has
the general sense of ἔχθρος ; as Matt. 12, 39. ‘Qs
λέων wpuopevos, “as a lion roaring and raging for
food, and ready for his prey.” Our roar is doubtless
from wp. It is well observed by Doddr., that it was
natural St. Peter should give such a caution, since
he, through inattention to his master’s warning, had
yielded to a similar temptation. Rosenm. (after
Benson) remarks, that there is here ascribed to the

VOL. VIII. ZY

690 1 PETER, CHAP. V.

Devil what he does by his instruments, the infuriate
persecutors, Jews and Heathens ; and that diabolical
temptation in general cannot be the subject, but
those tribulations which might sway their minds to
desert their Christian profession, and the necessity
for the exercise of fortitude and constancy ; as ap-
pears from ver.9. But, though such acted as the
subordinate agents of Satan, yet that will not ex-
clude, but rather suppose (as the words of the Apos-
tle require) the operation of their head and master ;
though as to the mode of operation we are (as in a
thousand other matters of undoubted fact) left in
the dark. Nay, it is difficult to imagine how, with
our present faculties, more light could have been
received.

9. ὦ ἀντίστητε στερεοὶ τῇ π. resist, and that unto
the last; never capitulate. So we are told to resist
the Devil, James 4, 7. Compare also Eph. 6, 13.
and see Benson. At oregéos τῇ πίστει Pott and others
strangely stumble, and pervert the plain sense, which
is: ‘continuing steadfast in faith.” Now this was
the most effectual mode of resisting him; since his
temptations were directed to induce them to re-
nounce their Christian profession.

9. εἰδότες τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων TH ἐν κόσμῳ ὑμιῶν
ἀδελφότητι ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. The τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων
is for τὰ αὐτὰ παθήματα. ᾿Επιτελ. is explained by the
recent Commentators happen. And this they sup-
port from Xen. Mem. 4, 8,8. But that is a very
feeble sense. Bens. renders, “ carried to a great
length.” But for that sense (which is somewhat
harsh) I know of no authority. It should rather
seem that the term is used for ἐνεργεῖσθαι, effected.
And may there not be some allusion to the predic-
tion of our Lord concerning these παθήματα ‘The
argument is this: ‘* your case is not singular: the
same persecutions are carried on in your Christian
brethren throughout the whole world.” ’Adead. is a
noun collective, signifying brotherhood : there is also
a subaudition of ovcy. Pott compares the well

1 PETER, CHAP. V. 691

~ known ‘* Solamen miseris socios habuisse malorum,”
and Cic. ad Fam. 6, 2.

10. ὁδὲ Θεὸς πάσης χάριτος---θεμελιώσαι. The πάσης
is not (as Pott supposes) put for μεγίστης, but (as
being the genitive of the efficient cause) the sense is:
«The God who is the author of blessings of every
kind ;” as 2 Cor. 13, 14, ἕο. ’O καλέσας ἡμᾶς----
Niiosd, * who hath by Christ and his Gospel called
and invited you to seek eternal salvation.” δόξαν,
i.e. happiness of the most glorious kind. Ὀλίγον,
i. e. for this brief period of our earthly sojourn. Ke-
ταρτίσαι, ““ may he perfect you more and more in the
knowledge and practice of religion.” Στὴρ ίξαι,
« confirm you in the practice of what you hice
Σθενωσαι, “strengthen you to the performance.”
Θεβεχειάδαι; δὲ settle, immoveably ground you.”
These four terms are unwarrantably taken by Pott as
synonymous, and accumulated for greater effect. It
would have been truer if he had said that all these
particulars are ¢ncluded, as contributing to fit them
for the state of eternal glory just mentioned. On
the doxology at αὐτω---ἀμήν. see the note on 4, 11.

12. διὰ Σιλουανοῦ---ἔγραψα, ‘thus frigidly have I
written by Silvanus (to you, I apprehend, a faithful
brother), exhorting, and bearing strong testimony
that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.”
On Silvanus see 1 Thess., 1,1. At ὀλίγων there is
the common ellipsis of ῥημάτων. The clause ὡς royi-
Sonat, like many similar expressions both in the
antient and modern languages, implies, not doubé,
but firm persuasion; as Rom. 8,18. So that there
is no reason, with Grot., to resort to the sense δὲ bene
memini, which is founded, as Rosenm. shows, ona
baséless hypothesis. Ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ
Θεοῦ, εἰς ἣν ἑστήκατε, “that the religion in which
you are (I trust) firmly fixed, is the true one (and
not Judaism, your former faith).”

13. συνεκλεκτὴ, Wall, Mill, and others, suppose to
be a Christian woman, ‘the wife of Peter, some think.
Others, subaud ἐκκλησία (which is supported by the

ὧν 2

692 1 PETER, CHAP. V.

Syr., Arab., Vulg., and Cicumen), i. 6. “ chosen by
God in conjunction with us.’ And I agree with

Wolf in preferring this, or διασποράν.

On the βαβυλῶνι there has been no little diversity of opinion.
Some, as Mill, Bertram, Pearson, Wolf, Wall, and Fabric., take to
denote Babylon in Egypt. But this has no probability, and has
been refuted by Lardner, who, with the antients, and many eminent
moderns, as Grot., Hamm., Whitby, and most of the Romanists,
think that by Babylon is, figuratively, meant Rome: and this is
supported by the united voice of antiquity; and, therefore, the
opinion merits great attention. Certain it is there are many points
of resemblance between that Queen of cities, and what we conceive
of antient Babylon. Hence the name has been applied to London,
Paris, &c. Were it not for this authority of antiquity on a point
where antiquity may be depended on, I should have been inclined
to adopt the opinion of Erasm., Germ., Beza, Gomar, Lightf.,
Scaliger, Salmas., Cler., L’Enfant, Cumberland, Wets., Schleus.,
Rosenm., Bens., &c., that it signifies Babylon in Assyria. But
those Commentators are not agreed whether to understand Selucia,
i.e. New Babylon, which (as Rosenm. observes) was the metropolis
of the eastern dispersion of the Jews, and whither it was likely St.
Peter, on Jeaving Jerusalem, would repair; or Old Babylon, which,
there is reason to think, was not yet totally deserted. The latter
opinion is adopted by Rosenm., and it seems preferable ; for there
is no satisfactory proof that Seleucia (though it stepped into the
place of Old Babylon, and was chiefly built from its ruins) ever
received the name of Babylon; though, I find, it seems to be so
called in some passages of Lucian, adduced by me in a Dissertation
on the Antiquities of antient Babylon, which I shall take an early
opportunity of laying before the public, in conjunction with others
on antient Carthage, antient Thebes, the Pyramids, the Labyrinth,
and other interesting monuments of the remotest antiquity.

13. καὶ Μάρκος ὃ υἱὸς pov. Whether υἱὸς is to be
understood in the physical or the figurative sense,
Commentators are not agreed. The former inter-
pretation is supported by some antients (see Qtcu-
men.), and, of the moderns, Heuman and others.
It is, however, a question which admits of no
certain determination : and the verdict of a critical
jury would probably be, “ Non liquet.” See Bens.
and Mackn., or Slade. I should, for my own part,
prefer the /atter interpretation, and, with many emi-
nent moderns, as Rosenm., &c., regard this Mark as
the same with the author of the Gospel.

14. ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλοις ἐν φιλήματι ἀγάπης. An
oriental custom of the highest antiquity, on which I

1 PETER, CHAP. V. 693

have before treated. Now this Aiss was called
indifferently the kiss of peace, or the holy kiss, as
being used after prayer; as we find from Origen
(cited by Rosenm.). Hence some MSS. read ἐν
φιλήματι ayo. But the ἐν is doubtless from the
margin. On the εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πᾶσι I have before
treated. “Evy Χριστῷ ᾽Ἴησου, scil. οὖσι, a periphrasis
for Christians.

694:

SECOND EPISTLE GENERAL OF PETER.

Soon after the writing of this Epistle St. Peter
was crucified at Rome, and, as we are told, with his
head downward,—a mixture of cruelty and con-
tumely such as was not unfrequently exhibited.
Thus Joseph. 1297, 30., προσήλουν δ᾽ οἱ στρατιῶται
TOUS AAWTAS, ἄλλον AAAW πρὸς χλεύην.

CHAP. I.

Verse 1—4. Here we have the Introduction to
the Epistle, in which, after asserting his Apostolick
character, and addressing the Epistle to the Gentile
converts, St. Peter salutes them, and reminds them
that their Christian privileges were owing to the
favour of God in Christ, and in consequence of the
miraculous effusion of the Holy Spirit. (Bens.)

1. Συμεών. Some read Σιμὼν. But it matters not;
since the one is the Hebrew (found in Acts 15, 14.),
and the other the Hellenistick form. On the clause
Συμεὼν---ριστοῦ, see the sensible remarks of Mr.
Slade. ᾿ἸἸσότιμος is compared by Rosenm. with ἱσο-
μοιρὸς, and other Classical forms. And he notices
the elegant use of λαγχάνειν in the sense receive.
Slade thinks it contains an allusion to the Jewish in-
heritances, which were obtained by lot. And he
refers to 1 Pet., 5, 8. Δικαιοσύνη. A general for
the special term χάριτι, or the like. And so the
Hebr. Mp. “Τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος I. X. Not-
withstanding the opinion of Wets. and many dis-

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 695

tinguished Scholars, I must still think that this
should be rendered, “ our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ :” the article not being repeated before σωτῆς-
ρος, because there is no change of person. See the
able note of Bp. Middlet. in loc., or the extracts in
Slade and Valpy.

2. χάρις ὑμῖν--- Θεοῦ. An earnest wish and prayer
for every blessing upon them which can result from
a right knowledge of God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ. Ἔν, 3, by.

3. ὡς πάντα ἡμιν---δεδωρημιένης, ““ Forasmuch as
God has, of his favour, given us all things which
pertain to life (i.e. happiness) and godliness.” Some
recent Commentators regard the ws as pleonastic,
adducing numerous examples. And this, as far as
concerns Genitives of consequence, may apply: but
when, as in a Latin or English version, the verb is
used, the sense will be because, or forasmuch as. The
construction of the sentence is thus laid down by
Pott: wes τῆς θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ πρὸς ϑωὴν
καὶ εὐσεβείαν ἡμῖν δεδωρημένης, διὰ --- ἀρετῆς (δι’ wy—
φθορας) καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, Χο. The participle δεδωρημέ-
yys may be taken (as it is by some) in the passive
sense; but that will still more embarrass the con<
struction, and there is no reason why we should
not take it in an active sense; for, as Rosenm.
observes, in verbs which want the Perfect, or any
other tense of the Middle voice, the Passive is used
in its place ; of which Loesn. adduces numerous ex-
amples (in this very verb) from Philo. It is remarked
by Rosenm., that in ver. 3 & 4, there is the antece-
dent ; and in ver. 3, the consequent is διὰ τῆς ἐπιγνώ-
σεως ---ἀρετῆς, ““ by the knowledge of him who hath,
of his. glorious benignity, invited us thereto.” And
he adds: ‘‘ Hac ratione omnibus presidiis recte
agendi nos instruxit.” In διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς there
is a common hendiadis: and on the sense here of
ἀρετὴ, see the note on 1 Pet., 2,9. Whitby, how-
ever, understands the words of the glorious effusion
of the Holy Spirit ; and Doddr. of that strengthen-

696 @ PETER, CHAP. I.

ing energy which God exerts on the human mind,
which appeared in so extraordinary a manner in the
Apostolic age.

4. δι’ ὧν τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν καὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα
δεδώρηται, ““ by which things.” This relates either
to πάντα, the more remote, or to δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς, the
nearer antecedent. Μέγιστα καὶ τίμια. An Hendi-
adis for exceedingly precious, namely, as pertaining
to eternal felicity. On these promises Benson copi-
ously treats. But, after all that he urges, I cannot
abandon the common opinion, that by these are
meant the Gospel promises in general, such as pardon
of sins to the penitent, a glorious resurrection, and
eternal life,—the most powerful motives to holiness,
and to aim at the becoming partakers of the Divine
nature.

4. ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, “that
(excited by these promises) you might become par-
takers of the Divine nature.” ‘The Φύσις is by some
taken pleonastically. And they render the κοινωνοὶ
θείας φύσεως ‘ participants of God,” 1. 6. of his bene-
fits. And this is harsh and forced, and at variance
with the context. The best Commentators are
agreed that φύσις here denotes disposition. ‘Thus to
be κοινωνοὶ τῆς Φύσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, will be, to imitate
God’s perfections, aim at a similitude to his moral
properties and attributes. And this similarity, the
Apostle proceeds to teach them, is to be aimed at by
renouncing evil lusts and carnal appetites. ‘That
such will form us to a resemblance to God, we find
from 1 Joh. 3, 7., 1 Pet. 1, 13.* dpa here, and

* So Rosenm., who further argues from the substance of ver. 3
and 4., that the Apostle could mean no other conjunction than that
of similitude and imitation. See an able discussion of the sense of
this phrase in Bens., who, after offering six different interpretations,
acquiesces in the above detailed one. He concludes by observing,
that the affections, passions, appetites, and inclinations, “ implanted
in us by God our maker, and the things that are pleasant or useful
without us, are none of them in themselves sinful. They are,
indeed, temptations, and often, by the abuse of them, lead men into
sin. Butsin consists merely in the abuse or corruption of them,
that is, using them ina wrong kind, manner, or degree. Mankind
too generally fall in with the temptations.”

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 697

at 2, 12 & 19., signifies corrupt morals. By the
world is meant, as usual, that part of it which not
only in that corrupt, but in every succeeding age,
may be said to be slaves of corruption and vanity.
See more in Pott and Rosenm.

5—7. Having reminded them that God had given
them all things. pertaining to a godly life, our Apos-
tle here mentions those virtues which were required
of them: withal intimating that, if professed Chris-
tians did not bring forth such fruit, they neither
duly attended to the nature of Christianity, nor
would they have any benefit thereby. (Bens.)

5. καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ σπουδὴν πᾶσαν, παρεισ. “* Where-
fore using the utmost diligence.” The best Com-
mentators are agreed that this verse is connected
with ver. 3, and that the καὶ is to be taken,
as often, pro consecutivo. See Pott, Bens., and Ro-
senm. At αὐτὸ τοῦτο Rosenm. subauds did. But
κατὰ, Which is supplied by Homb., Schoettg., and
Wolf, is the milder ellipsis. As to the various read-
ings here found, they merely arose from the diffi-
culty, and are purely emendations.

zr. παρεισφέρειν, Rosenm. remarks, is here (as in
the best writers) used for σπουδάϑειν ; of which Wets.
adduces examples from Joseph. Ant. 20, 9, 12., and
also from Diod. and Liban. I cannot but think,
with the early moderns (as Beza, Erasm., and Pisc.)
that the παρὰ refers to the union of our diligence in
co-operation with the grace of God.” See Phil. 2,
12 and 13. And, even in the Classical use, co-opera-
tion is (I suspect) always implied. There is the
same allusion in ἐπιχορηγήσατε ; though it is simply
rendered exhibere.

On the exact sense of ἐν throughout this glorious
chain the Commentators are not agreed. The recent
ones takes it for σὺν ; others, for cis, unto; which,
considering the nature of the participles rape. and
ἐπιχορ.» seems to be preferable.*

* Slade thinks it may be a sign of the dative. But that is only
silencing a word which we cannot explain. Thereis more justice in
his remark, that ἐπιχορήγατε ἐν τῇ πίστει may be the same as χο-

698 2 PETER, CHAP. I.

The ἀρετὴ most modern Commentators, from Hamm. to Pott.
and Rosenm., considering that several particulars included in the
general sense of the term are just after added, take in the more special
sense courage, like the Latin virtus. But this signification is unex-
ampled in the Scriptures: and the Apostle elsewhere shows too
little attention to logical regularity to allow us to lay much stress on
the argument adduced. Therefore, though this interpretation is
ably supported by Hamm., Doddr., Bens., Wall, Mackn., and Ro-
senm., [ cannot consent to abandon the common one, Christian
virtue, which is retained, and well illustrated by Schleus. Lex.

Τυγῶσιν. This is by many Commentators, in conformity with the
interpretation of ἀρετὴ just mentioned, explained prudence, wisdom,
discretion, so as not to unnecessarily expose themselves to danger.
But that is a very uncommon sense of γνῶσις ; and religious know-
ledge must surely here be understood. And so it is explained by
most Commentators. See Mackn. and Jortin ap. D’Oyley.

᾿Εγκρατείαν. The virtues now enumerated are given as examples
of what is meant by the general term ἀρετὴ : and they are classed
first under the head personal virtues; 2. those that bave God for
their object; and 3. those that relate to man. Now the personal
virtues are ἐγκρατεία, temperance in the use of pleasure, and, if
need be, abstinence from it, and ὑπόμονὴ, patient endurance, or the
right government cf ourselves in adversity. Εὐσεβεία. This is
well explained by Mr. Slade a godly temper and behaviour, such a
spirit of godliness as shows itself in our intercourse with the world.
Yet we must not exclude that expression of godliness as shows itself
in all the external acts of worship and reverence to the Supreme
Being. Φιλαδελφία, i. 6. love to Christians. “Ayan. This signi-
fies love in general to others, considered not merely as Christians,
but as men.

On these separate terms I shall not further enlarge; that falling
rather under the province of the general Theologian, or Preacher, to
whom I must refer the reader in the many excellent Sermons on
this interesting portion of Scripture from the pens of our best
English Divines.

8. ταῦτα γὰρ ὑμῖν ὑπάρχοντα---ἐπίγνωσιν, “For if
these virtues reside in, abound in, and be on the in-
crease in you; they will shew you as persons not bar-
ren, or unfruitful, in respect to the knowledge of the
religion of Jesus Christ,” i. e. persons whose know-
ledge of the religion is not barren and unfruitful of
good works (as the calumnious Heathens pretend).

Such seems to be the complete sense ; and thus the

pnyhoare ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. But itis not quite the same. The éwiand
ἐν may be expressed by our compound preposition unto: whereas
χορηγ. ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει can only mean ‘‘ supply do your faith ;’’ but
unto signifies in addition to and besides.

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 699

words require no laboured explanation. See, how-
ever, Benson and Pott.
aA ey cs £ ny. £8 .

9. ᾧ yap py πάρεστι ταυτα---ἁμαρτιων, For he who
is destitute of these virtues is but blind and dull of
perception, forgetful of the purification of his former
sins.” Μυωπάξειν signifies to wink, or half shut the
eyes, as those do who, being short-sighted, endeavour
to discern a distant object. The sense is: “ He
who is destitute of the moral virtues, and yet expects
salvation of the Gospel, which imperatively enjoins
them, is blind, or sees a very little way into the true
nature of it, and forgets that he was cleansed from
his former sins only on condition of renouncing sin
in future.” Now to forget this were the greatest
blindness, such a setting light on the benefits of
baptism, as implies a contempt of the religion. Here
I would compare a passage of Plato, Ep. 7. τυφλὸς
ὧν καὶ οὐχ ὁρῶν οἷς ἀνέπεται τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνοσι-
ουργίαι.

Λήθην λαμβάνειν signifies to forget, like many
other phrases formed ae λαμβάνειν and a substantive.

On the καθαρ. τῶν ἁμαρτίων it is observed by Bens., that the
Scriptures often and plainly speak of a twofold justification, sancti-
fication, and salvation. The one initial; the other final. Whena
wicked Jew or Heathen took on him the profession of the Christian
religion by baptism, he was justified, purified, or saved, from his old
sins, upon that profession of faith in Christ. Acts 15, 9. 16, 31. 22,
16. Romans 16, 4. 1 Corinthians 6, 11. 2 Cor. 7, 1. pheriars 5,
26. Tit. 2, 14. Heb. 10, 22 and 23. 1 Pet. 3, 21. 2 Pet. 2, 20, &c.
But the final justification, sanctification, or salvation, is not to be
attained without Christian good works, or an holy life, after bap-
tism. Faith alone was sufficient for the former, but not for the
latter. Jer. 17, 7 and 8. Ezek. 18, 21, ἅς. Matt. 18, 35 Rom. 9, 6.
&c. 1 Joh. 1,7. It is truly remarked by Slade, that this text pow-
erfully corroborates two important doctrines, 1. that the rite of bap-
tism, duly administered, purifies from sin; 2. that men may fall
from a state of purification and grace.

10, 11. διὸ μᾶλλον, ἀδελφοὶ, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν
ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι, ‘ Wherefore the
rather give diligence to this, only (by the practice of
these good works) to make our calling and election
sure, firm, stable, and efficacious.” The κλῆσις καὶ
ἐκλογὴ 1S explained by Rosenm., the greatest benefit

700 2 PETER, CHAP. I.

by which God, of his providence, hath brought us to
the Christian religion, and promised us eternal life,
if we perform our part. I have more than once illus-
trated the sense of the words, on Rom. 11, 5. and
elsewhere. In refutation of an erroneous exposition
of Mackn., it is remarked by Mr. Slade, that their
calling to eternal life was conditional; and thus
there seems no impropriety in the converts being
enjoined to make that calling sure and effectual.
They were, at that time, in a state of election; but
it was a state from which they might fall ; they were
elect only so long as they were careful to maintain
faith and good works.

Βέβαιον γίνεσθαι Rosenm. explains ratum frert.
Now these divine promises (says he) we ratify by
faith, and the practice of good works. The διὰ τῶν
καλῶν ἔργων added in some MSS. and Versions,
seems to be a mere scholium. -

10. ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ πότε, “ If ye
do this, ye shall never fail, or your hope of salvation
be frustrated.” Such is, doubtless, the sense; and itis
strange that Carpz., and seemingly Rosenm., should
render the οὐ μὴ πταίσητε πότε, ““ ye will never sin in
future,” i. e. ye will be careful lest ye forfeit eternal
felicity by sin. This is harsh.

11. οὕτω yap πλουσίως---- Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ‘ For thus
will, most mercifully, be granted you an entrance
to,” &c. Πλουσίως, “of abundant goodness; as
Eph. 2, 4. and elsewhere. Ὁ the Classical exam-
ples of Schleus. Ladd Herod. 2, 44. ἰδὸν (ἱρὸν) πλου-
σίως κατεσκευασμένον. And in Livy we have opulenter
for abunde. ᾿Ἐπιχορήγηθήσεται, grant; as 2 Cor.
9, 10.

12. διὸ οὐκ ἀμελήσω---αληθείᾳ, “ Wherefore (as the
thing is so momentous) on this sense.” See Slade in
loc. ‘*I shall never cease,” &c. From ver. 18. to
3, 13. the Apostle exhorts them not to suffer them-
selves to be deceived by false teachers ; premising a
brief mention, ver. 1i—15. of the causes by which
he thought proper to again and again urge them to

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 701

hold fast that part of pure doctrine which was by the
false teachers, not only corrupted, but even derided.

The καίπερ εἰδότας may apply, if not to all, yet to
the greater part of those whom he is addressing.
(Rosenm.) I would compare Appian Pun. 58. εἰδό-
τας ὑμᾶς ἀναμνήσω. The ἐστηριγμένους ἐν τῇ παρούση
ἀληθείᾳ may be an hypallage, signifying, “ though ye
are at present established in the truth.” By Ro-
senm. it is considered as a brief expression for “ are
established in the truth which ye have hitherto pro-
fessed.” But this seems incongruous.

13, 14. δικαίον δὲ ὑἡγοῦμιαι----ὁπομνήσει, “ I think it
right, while I am in this earthly tabernacle, to (thus)
stir you up by admonition.” Δίκαιον, right, meet.
A popular use. On σκηνώμ. see 2 Cor. 5.1. For this
word in the sense corpus humanum no Classical au-
thority has (I believe) been yet adduced. It occurs,
however, in Eurip. Heracl. 690. σμικρὸν τὸ σὸν σκή-
va, Where see Barnes.

14. εἰδὼς ὅτι ταχινὴ ἐστιν ἡ ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματός
pov. These words are rightly regarded by Carpz. as
parenthetical. ‘‘ Knowing that speedy will be my
laying aside of my tabernacle.” ᾿Αποτιθ., Rosenm.
observes, is properly used of putting off clothes; but
is applied, per similitudinem, to striking a tent; a
term here, as often, used to denote the body. Hence
those out of the body are at 2 Cor. 5, 3. styled
γυμνοὶ... ,

In the words καθὼς καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
ἐδήλωσέ μοι, the Apostle alludes to his martyrdom,
which took place, it seems, the next year. He
plainly adverts to the words of our Lord recorded at
Joh. 21,18 and 19. But whether καθὼς will admit of
the sense in the manner which, as Benson renders it,
Idoubt. It is plain that Christ foretold to Peter his
martyrdom, as he also did to Paul. (See 2 Tim. 4,
6.) But the question is, whether these words of the
Apostle were founded on any fresh revelation as to
the speedy approach of that event? ‘This the an-
tients say was the case. But the point admits of no

702 2 PETER, CHAP. I.

certain determination. See the conjectures of Bens.

It seems highly probable that he had; but it is pos-

sible that he had not, and the words, it is evident, may
explained upon another supposition.

5. σπουδάσω δὲ καὶ----ποιεῖσθαι. The δὲ is resump-
tive: ‘I will (I say) strive, that after my departure,
you may ever have to be mindful of these things.”
"Eyew is here used for δύνασθαι ; as often.

16. οὐ yap σεσοΦισμένοις μύθοις---παρουσίαν. On the
connection of this verse with the preceding see Bens.
and Pott. It is briefly remarked by Rosenm.:
‘¢ Here are laid down the reasons why the doctrine
delivered by the Apostle is true.” Σεσοφισμένοις
μύθοις, fables craftily devised, and artfully dressed
up, like the sophisms of the Philosophers. Nume-
rous Classical citations are adduced by Wets., but
not quite apposite. The following will, I think, be
found so. Diod. Sic. 2, 133. ult. μύθους ἡγοῦνται πε-
πλασμένους Tas περὶ τῶν ᾿Αμαϑόνιδων ἀρχαιολογίας, and
2, 504, 24. where it is said that men in prosperity
are accustomed καταφρονεῖν τῷ Θεῴ ὡς μυθών πεπλασ-
μένων, where Wesseling replaces the old reading τοῦ
Θεοῦ. I conjecture τών Θείων.

The δύναμις καὶ παρουσία Rosenm. takes as an hen-
diadis for δυνάτη παρουσία; which, he thinks, the
words following require. The sense (he adds) is:
‘* Jesus Christ lived on this earth, and in many won-
derful ways proved that he was the Son of God; and
this we do not press on your belief, by the use of
such fictitious stories and fables as the Gentile legis-
lators had recourse to, or other crafty persons.”
The δυν. καὶ παρ. advert to the second advent of
Christ in majesty, to take vengeance on those that
know not God, and obey not the Gospel. See the
note on 2,1. The ἐπόπται γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου pe-
γαλειότητος refers to the transfiguration, more plainly
adverted to in what follows. ᾿Επόπται is a term de-
rived from the Classical writers, where it is used to
denote one admitted to view the mysteries. So that
it need not be considered, with Mr. Slade, as merely

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 703

synonymous with αὐτόπται; but only the two forms
may be compared. See the notes of Elsn., Bens., and
Mack., or the extracts in Slade.

17. λαβὼν yap παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν.
Here again we have the participle for the verb.
‘* For he received honour and glory from God the
Father ;” namely, at his transfiguration. See Matt.
17, 5. Φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῶῷ---δόξης, “such a voice
from the exalted glory (i. e. from the glorious Jeho-
vah) being uttered over him, saying, This is,” &c.
On which see the note on Matt..17, 5. seqq. At
αὐτῷ must be understood ἐπὶ. Rosenm. compares
Ps. 145, 3. μεγαλοπρέπειν τῆς δόξης.

On ver. 18. see on Matt. 17, 5. and Mark 9, 2.

19. καὶ ἔχομεν βεβαιότερον τὸν προφητικὸν λόγον. It
is debated what is the sense of τὸν προφητικὸν ; and
whether the comparative in βεβαιότερον has any force
or not. The latter will partly depend on the former,
which some interpret of the gift of prophecy in the
Christian Church. But the antients, and the most
judicious moderns (rightly) maintain that it refers to
the whole body of the prophetical predictions concern-
ing the Messiah inthe O.'T. (See Bp. Horsley’s 15th
Sermon, or an extract from it in Slade ; and also Grot.,
Bens., and Wolf.) And this is ably supported by
Knapp Script. var. argum. p. 1. seqq. If such be
the true sense, the comparative must have its usual
force. Thus Rosenm. explains: ‘‘ The prophecies
had always a great authority with us; but now they
have a far greater; since we see events so aptly cor-
responding to the predictions.” So Wets.: ‘‘ Sermo

Provheticus nunc firmior est, postquam eventu com-
robatus lury ,.

adds) the Greek Goin cvemmne ΘΕ ἘΠ Ὲ < (he
or the extract from him in Rosenm. po ane
19. ᾧ καλώς ποιεῖτε eh τς ‘ μὴ ᾧ δ ποθ ee
do well to attend. So Josep ἐν gcainerrer
1.) οἷς (γράμμασι Apayov) momo j
i φο ee ibid to prophecies Serie
tascam) is, to investigate and reflect upon th

704 2 PETER, CHAP. I.

sense and fulfilment.” It must, however, also imply
a prompt faith in the word of God. ‘Qs λύχνῳ gai-
νοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷῴ τόπω. Paivoyrs is to be taken as the
participle imperfect ; for that is required by the past
tenses of the verbs following. Avyvw, a lantern or
watch-light (as opposed to the sun), which shows
objects but dimly, as the prophecies pointed the way
of salvation. Αὐχμηρῷῴῷ torw, “ a dim and dark
place.” Avy. signifies, properly, dirty, squalid ; an
idea which, as regards places, we continually con-
nect with that of darkness. And hence the term
comes to have that sense. So Hesych.: αὐχμηρόν
oxorwoes. And so, in Mich. 4, 8., the Sept. have
αὐχμώδης ; Aquila, cxorwdys ¢ and the Vulg. nebu-
losus. Eas οὗ ἡμέρα---καρδίαις ὑμῶν, “ until the day
or time (of clearer knowledge) arise, and the dog-star
arise in your hearts.” This sentence (and, indeed,
the whole of this beautiful passage) is strangely mis-
understood by several eminent Interpreters. No
one has better explained the sense than Rosenm., as
follows: “ On the arrival of the sun, whose messen-
ger is the morning-star, the resplendent day dispels
all the darkness, and obscures that candle. So also
the doctrine of Christ dispels the darkness of igno-
rance, and, in respect to clearness, far surpasses the
doctrine of the Prophets. On an attentive compa-
rison this difference will be very apparent, and the
mind will be illumined with divine light. For it will
be evident, that the predictions of the Prophets were
dictated by the Holy Spirit, since the events so ad-
mirably correspond to the sayings.” See also Mr.
Slade’s note. Wie
20. Touto πρῶτον Λα ΤΕΥ. — pee. Γ ae 1515 2
«uverpreted. The difficulty hino
diet evcitaiMien Y hinges on the rare word
y eminent Commentators

which, indeed, yields a good sense

deducible from ‘the words; » but is not fairly

insomuch that some, by

2 PETER, CHAP. I. 705

whom this interpretation has been adopted, have re-
sorted to emendation, conjecturing ἐπελεύσεως or ἐπη-
λύσεως, Which would yield the required sense; but
for neither of these is there any authority. Greatly
preferable to this is the common rendering, ‘ of
private explanation or interpretation.”* A frequent
sense of ἐπίλυσις. And so ἐπιλύω, in the sense explain,
occurs elsewhere in Scripture. ‘This interpretation,
too, is adopted by some eminent Critics, and recently
by Schleus. Bp. Horsley (who has four Sermons on
this text) explains (nearly in the same way), ‘“ no
prophecy is of self-interpretation.”” See the Sermons
themselves, or an extract in Slade. Carpz. explains
προφητεία of Scripture in general. But that sense
cannot be admitted, since the context evidently leads
us to prophecy. Rosenm. and Jaspis explain: “ no
prophecy can be expounded of itself, or by itself, nor
understood without comparing together the prophecy
and its event or completion, by the aid of history.”
Which is very true; but not, I think, the truth in-
tended by the Apostle ; since it is agreeable to what
follows: and this interpretation varies so entirely
from the second mentioned one, that it cannot (as
Mr. Slade supposes it may) be united with it. The
one above adopted has been, of late, ably defended
and illustrated by Knapp, ubi supra, and Rosenm.
acknowledges that thus the verse will connect with
the following.

91. οὐ yap θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη---ἄνθρωποι,
‘* For prophecy was never uttered by the will of
man, but the holy men of God spoke as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit.” ᾿Ηνέχθη, brought for-

* It is thus expressed by Mr. Slade : ‘* Prophecy gave no light to
the age in which it was delivered, and therefore was a lamp shining
in a dark place ; and let this be impressed upon you, that prophecy
was so entirely and exclusively designed for the benefit of future
ages, that its import was not always fully understood even by the
prophet himself, who was aware that his words were often inappli-
cable to the people immediately addressed (1 Pet. 1,11 ἃ 12.), and.
uttered them not from the suggestions or persuasions of his own
mind, but from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”

VOL. VIII. 27

706 2 PETER, CHAP. I. Il.

ward. The οἱ in οἱ ἅγιοι is omitted in some MSS.,
and bracketed by Vater, but wrongly (I think) since
it bears the stamp of genuineness. ‘The title éy.
Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπ. was commonly given to the Prophets.
Φερόμενοι, carried away, inspired. Which (notwith-
standing what Rosenm. says) throws light on the
nature of inspiration. See Mackn.

CHAP. II.

VeRSE 1. éyevovro—aaw. This connects well with
the preceding; showing that not all are prophets
who call themselves such ; many falsely assume the
name. The Apostle, therefore, now turns from true
prophets to false teachers. (Rosenm.) See the co-
pious explanation, by Benson, of the contents of this
Chapter, and the useful introductory remarks of
Slade from Sherlock, Benson, Paley, and Doddr.

1, ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ Wevdorpopyrai—amwaeiay, “ There
were, however, also false prophets among the (Is-
raelitish) people ; thus also will there be among you
false teachers, who shall introduce pernicious here-
sies, even denying the Lord that purchased them
(with his own blood); bringing thereby on them-
selves rapid destruction.”

As to the persons meant by these false teachers,
and the nature of their opinions, there has been much
debate. ‘The common opinion is, that they were
Nicolaitans, or Gnostics (persons who conjoined the
Oriental philosophy with the Christian religion).
But this has been convincingly refuted by Tittman
de Vestigiis Gnostic. &c. Yet it is observed by
Rosenm., that though the name Gnostics was not
known in those times, yet the dogmas of those who,
in the second century, were called Gnostics, might
be known and disseminated, Others take them to
have been Judaizers, who (like the Montanistee and
Sibyllistee of the second and third centuries), aban-
doning the true doctrine, feigned oracles against the
Roman government, and promised a new theatre of

2 PETER, CHAP. II. 707

pleasure to their votaries. ‘These (I would observe)
seem to have commenced with being fanatics, and
ended with being hypocrites and knaves: and many
opinions of the Mahomedan system seem to have
been partly derived from that impure source. That
their tenets were most pernicious, appears from the
strong language of the Apostle at ver. 10.
Παρεισάξουσιν, ““ shall clandestinely introduce,
* ”
smuggle in.

This and the ἔσονται Storr understands not so much of prediction,
properly so called, as argumentantis, or consuetudinis; as appears
(he thinks) from the historical description which follows. But the
consuetudo cannot well be thought of; and though the other may
be tolerated, yet it is precarious and unnecessary. Aipéces ἀπω-
λείας, i.e. pernicious and sectarian errors. On aip. I have before
treated. Kai τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι. On
these words Commentators are not quite agreed. Some explain the
δεσπότην οὗ God. See Whitby, Bens., and Mackn., or Slade. But
this is very harsh. It is far more natural to take it of Christ; as,
indeed, the ἀγοράσ. requires; and the term δεσπ. differs scarcely at
all from Κύριος. It is truly observed, too, by Pott, that the passages
of the Old Testament, cited by Wets. and Benson, to establish the
other interpretation, are of quite another kind. (See more in his
note.) On what is meant by denying Christ as their Lord we are
left somewhat in the dark, owing to a want of historical testimony.
It cannot denote utterly denying his Messiahship, any more than,
according to Pott’s interpretation, denying Christ to be a Redeemer,
for that would be equivalent to denying him to be the Messiah ;
neither will the construction of the words permit this. As to the
sense proposed by Rosenm., “ not sincerely worshipping Christ,” it
is too vague and feeble. There seems to be here a provincial brevity
of diction; and the sense is probably this: ‘* denying him who pur-
chased them (i.e. their Redeemer) to be their Lord.” Storr and
Rosenm., conjecture that the controversy was “ de imperio Christi.”
It should seem that, from a misinterpretation of the words of the
Apostle, they stumbled at the descriptions of the majesty of Jesus
Christ and the ineffable glory of his second advent; and regarded
the account of the Apostles on that subject as a fable devised to hold
the disciples in subjection. Now this may possibly have been the
case; but, if so, they must have denied the proper deity of Jesus
Christ ; and they probably held opinions not very different from those
which afterwards generated Arianism and Socinianism; and there-
fore I must maintain that this text may, with great propriety, be
adduced in controversy with persons professing such tenets. Now
with this denial of the δεσποτεία of Christ was, as we learn from
what follows (and this, indeed, we might expect), conjoined an im-
patience of any government, and the vices allied to such a restless

spirit.
ZZ2

708 2 PETER, CHAP. 11.

᾿Απωλείαν does not, perhaps, mean perdition, but rather κρῖμα,
condemnation, and consequently punishment. So in the next verse
κρῖμα and ἀπωλεία are used in a parallelism, as synonymous. And
of some not dissimilar persons St. Paul (Rom. 13, 2.) says: οἱ δὲ
ἀνεστηκότες ἐαυτοῖς κρῖμα λήψονται.

2. καὶ πολλοὶ ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀπωλείαις.
Many MSS., Versions, and Fathers read ἀσελγείαις,
which is received by the recent Editors; but (I
think) on very precarious grounds. One may ima-
gine why ἀπωλ. should be changed into aceay.; but
not vice versa. ‘That the term doer. was very ap-
plicable to the persons in question, must be acknow-
ledged ; and it seems to be more agreeable to what
follows, the sense of which is, “ on account of which
the Christian religion (for that is what is meant by
the way of truth) wiil be evil spoken of, and regarded
as false.” I would compare Joseph. 1078, 5. ἀπισο-
τίαν τὴς ἀληθείας κατέχεεν, “he scattered a disbelief
even of truth; he made even truth to be disbelieved.”
Whether the persons in question were Judaizers, or
Gnostics, or Carpocratians, the words will equally
hold good. See Irenzeus, cited by Pott.

8. kal ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ πλαστοῖς λόγοις ὑμᾶς ἐμπορεύ-
σονται, ‘* And through covetousness, they will make
a mere gain of you (i. 6. of teaching you), and hawk
about such doctrines, as merchandize.” Mackn.
here recognizes a prediction respecting the Romish
Priests. Be that as it may, the words have been
made good in them. The Apostle (I conceive)
rather looks forward not so much to any particular
persons, as to those perversions and abuses of the
Gospel of which, from the corruption of human na-
ture, its teachers in every age would furnish lament-
able examples. 3

3. πλαστοῖς Adyos. Of πλάττειν λόγους Wets. ad-
duces two examples from Plato and Artemid.* Now
these 7a. Ady. consisted of speeches and doctrines

* [ add Eurip. Bacch, 199. πλασταῖσι βακχείαισιν. 5:55 p.70,
8. λόγοις πεπλασμένοις---ἀξιώσει πιστεύειν ὑμᾶς, ABschin. 31, 41.
πρᾶγμα λέγων πεπλασμένον,

2 PETER, CHAP. II. 709

devised ad captandum, and adapted to the corrup-
tions of human nature, by representing (as most
Commentators suppose) the Christian freedom to be
a license for doing what they pleased.

In the next words οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ,
καὶ 4 ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ νυστάϑει, the pen of the Apostle
seems dipped in gall; but the language is justified
by the occasion; and it is not tobe explained away,
and handled in the tasteless manner it is done by
Potts, who, however, on the νυστάϑει aptly cites
Eurip. Hee. 662. odror’ ἐνδει λυπρὰ σου κηρύγματα.
The wor. is indeed put for xpovigera:. So Adschyl.
Theb. 54. καὶ τῶνδε πύστις οὐκ ὄκνῳ yoovigerasr. The
term ἔκπαλαι is disapproved of by the Greek gram-
marians, but used by many good authors. See Pott.
None of the Commentators here remark on the
change from the future to the present tense, by
which the Apostle figures himself as present at the
time when the abuses shall arise, and denounces the
punishment as of old reserved for such deceivers.

4. Now follows the reason why these false teachers
are punished by God, namely, since God always
visits sin with punishment, and piety and virtue with
reward; and this is shown by the examples which
follow. In ver. 4—8. is contained the protasis ; and
in ver. 9 and 10. the apodosis.

Bi yap ὁ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, * For if (as we learn) the
Lord spared not even the angels, that were disobedient and rebelled
against him.” Compare Jude 6. ᾿Αλλὰ σειραῖς ξόφου ταρταρώσας
παρέδωκεν eis κρίσιν τετηρημένου. Many MSS. read τηρουμένους.
By the σειραῖς @dfov Rosenm. understands places whose darkness
held the prisoners, as it were, encaged, and with chains. And he
refers to Sap. 17, (17) 18. ἀλύσει σκότους ἐδέθησαν. Schleus. too,
after explaining σείραι ξόφου, as put for σείραι ξοφῶδεῖς, cites from
Apulej. tenebras arctissimas ; and refers to Hoelzl. on Ap. Rhod.
1, 218. It is strange none of the Commentators should have
thought of Herod. 5,77. where, in an Athenian inscription in the
Acropolis, it is said of captives held in fetters: Δεσμῷ ἐν ἀχλυοέντι
σιδηρέῳ ἐσβεσαν ὕβριν. So also Hschyl. Agam. 1631. 6 δυσφιλὴς
σκότῳ λίμος ξύνοικος. With which I would compare a similar ele-
gance of Burns:

«Then age and want, O ill-matched pair,
Show man was made to mourn.”

710 2 PETER, CHAP. II.

In some MSS, ϑόφου is omitted; but that is to avoid the difficulty ;
and the common reading is confirmed by a kindred passage of
Jude 6.

Terapwoas, “ hurled them down to hell.” Every one will bring
to mind the sublime description of Milton, Parad. Lost. Taprapos
(plur. τάρταρα) is a word found in Homer and Hesiod, and signifies
the lowest and darkest pit in the universe.* It is needless to enter
into a description of what the antients figured to themselves under
this notion. Suffice it to say, that the Apostle employs it as a most
forcible adumbration of misery the most deplorable and hopeless.
Rosenm. observes, that all along is to be supplied the consequence,
“80 then neither will God spare others.” See Pole’s Syn., Whitby,
and Mackn., or Slade.

5. καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλ᾽ ὄγδοον Nwe
δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα. ἐφύλαξε. ‘The ὄγδ. Noe signifies,
«¢ Noah, and seven others.” An idiom found in the
best writers from Herodotus and Thucydides down-
wards. Though it is usual to add the pronoun
αὑτὸς. Such is the only explanation that can well
be admitted. See Whitby, Hamm., and Rosenm.
The most apposite passage cited is that from Polyb.
16, 2. (by Raphael), τρίτος αὐτὸς 6 Διονυσιδωρος avev-
néaro. Now Noah is called a κηρὺξ δικαιοσύνης, be-
cause he did his utmost to recall men from the error
of their ways to a life of piety and virtue. See Hebr.
11, 7.

ΚΚόσμυ ἀσεβών, “ the world consisting of ungodly
persons.” For all but Noah’s family were such.

6. καὶ πόλεις---κατέκρινε. Καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν
is well explained by Rosenm., “condemned them
to an overthrow ;” as κατέκρ. αὐτὸν θανάτω, in Mark
10, 33. and elsewhere. Others render, * punished
them with an overthrow.” But that would be too
harsh. 1 εφρώσας, “ burning to a cinder.” So Philo
369. (cited by Loesner), ἡμέρᾳ μιᾷ αἱ μὲν εὐανδροῦται
πόλεις τάφος τῶν οἰκητόρων ἐγεγένηντο, αἱ δ᾽ ἐκ λίθων καὶ
ϑύλων κατασκευαὶ τεφρὰ καὶ λεπτὴ κόνις.

* Of its origin the etymologists seem perfectly ignorant. (See
Lannep. Etym.) I suspect it to be an intensive reduplication of the
very old word tar, which in the earliest dialects seem to have signi-
fied dark; and indeed our term far appears to be derived froma
common source,

2 PETER, CHAP. 11. 711

Ὑπόδειγμα, ‘an exemplar of the fate which the
wicked may expect.” See Loesner and Hypke, and
also Slade.

7. καὶ δίκαιον---ἐῤῥύσατος Δίκαιον, gust, as com-
pared with the rest. The construction is: Kkara-
πονούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς τών ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ.
Καταπονεῖσθαι is nearly synonymous with βασανί-
ϑεσθαι. ᾽᾿Αθεσμος is rarely used of persons. It here
signifies exlex, a despiser of all laws. The term is
applied to these, because they did not live after that
primeval law, partly of nature and partly of tradi-
tion, with which they were favoured. (Rosenm.)

8. βλέμματι γὰρ---ἐβασάνιϑεν. The construction
is: ὃ γὰρ δίκαιος ἐγκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἐβασάνιϑε βλέμ.-
ματι καὶ ἀκοῇ, ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας, ψυχὴν δικαίαν, ἀνόμοις
ἔργοις. Βασανίϑειν is here used in a figurative sense.
Here again is to be supplied the consequence: “ If
God liberated those persons from afflictions, he can
liberate us also.” (Rosenm.)

9. οἷδε ΙΚυριος---πηρεῖν. It is well observed by
Whitby, that God’s knowledge here, as often, in-
cludes his power and will. And indeed this is found
in common phraseology. Teacup. must here de-
note calamities for their trial and probation. The
κολαξομιένους is said tobe for the future κολασθησο-
μένους. ‘The sense may be thus expressed: ‘‘ who
are to be punished.” It is observed by Rosenm.,
that by one remarkable example a general sentiment
is inferred, namely, that the wicked will assuredly
be punished, in whatever that punishment may con-
sist. And Whitby well observes, that the evils the
wicked suffer in this life will not exempt them from
punishment in the life to come. See also Slade.

10. μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασ-
μοῦ mopevop.evovs. ἹΠορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς, like the
parallel expression in Jude 7. (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρ-
Kos ἑτέρας), signifies all uncleanness, both fornication
and adultery. ᾿Εν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμιοῦ, “in the lust of
defilement and pollution.” The first chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans is the best commentary on

G12 2 PETER, CHAP. II.

this passage. apé, in the sense in which it is here
used, is rare in the Classical writers; but it occurs
in Max. Tyr. D. 26, 5. 11, 21. ἐπὶ σαρκῶν ἡδονὰς
ouvrerapevos. and infr. ἃ 7. οἰόμενος ἐν τῇ σαρκῶν Φύσει
κατορωρύχθαι τὸ καλὸν. and 11, 81. ἐφ᾽ ὕβριν σαρκών.

Κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας, ““ despising (all autho-
rity of) magistrates.” Abstract for concrete. Then,
by a sort of climax, the Apostle subjoins : roapyral,
αὐθάδες, δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασῷημοῦντες. Here Bens.,
Pott, and Rosenm. subaud ὄντες. The sense is:
‘“‘ daring and self-willed as they are, they scruple
not to speak evil even of rulers in high stations,
nay, in the most exalted.” Such is by the best
Commentators regarded as the sense. On τολμ.
and dv. see Pott or Schleus., to whose examples I
add Thucyd. 1, 70. καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν τολμηταὶ παρὰ
γνώμην κινδυνευταὶ, where I shall have many similar
passages to cite.

11. ὅπου ἄγγελοι, &c., “ Whereas angels, though
far superior in strength and power, bring not a rail-
ing accusation against them (i. e. those of their
body, the bad angels), at the tribunal of the Lord.”
Most Commentators by αὐτών understand the magz-
strates, or bad. But I see not how that can be ad-
mitted: and it is well observed by Bens., that as it
is a rule of interpretation that the plainer and larger
account of any thing should be taken to explain
what is more brief and obscure, so this may very
well be explained from Jude 9., and if so, the other
interpretation is the true one. See Bens., and com-
pare the passages. And see also the note of Slade.

12. οὗτοι δὲ---καταφθαρήσονται. By the ἄλογα goa
are meant such as, like the animals devoid of reason,
follow their sensual appetites. ‘The εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ
φθορὰν is (I conceive) a clause forming an epithet of
2oa; and the sense is: ‘‘ whose sole end of creation
is the good of man, namely, to be taken and slaugh-
tered for food (according to Gen. 1.), or because the
good of man requires that they should be destroyed.”
Φυσικὰ is variously explained. By some, thus:

2 PETER, CHAP. II. 713

‘* natural (i. 6. naturally) brute beasts.” And this is
supported by the passage of Jude. But I prefer,
with Cicumen., of the antients, and most recent
Commentators, to point: ws ἄλογα ϑώα, φυσικὰ, ye-
γεννημένα, &c., i.e. such as follow the impetus of
sense, and are devoid of reason.

12. ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες, 1. 6. βλασφημ..
ταὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα ἐν οἷς ayy. The ἐν corresponds to
the ΗΘ». 3. On the sense of the words the recent
Commentators variously speculate. See Storr in
loco, or as cited by Rosenm. ᾽ν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτών

καταφθαρήσονται. A fine antithetical expression, of

which the sense is: ‘ they shall perish for (or be-
cause) and by their own corrupt practices.”
13. κομιούμιενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας.

A bitter sarcasm. This must be closely connected with the pre-
ceding ; and the sense is: ‘‘ Thus they shall receive the reward of
their unrighteousness.” For examples of this sense of μισθὸς I refer
to Herod. 3, 15. ἃ 8, 90, Plut. 1, 705. and Soph. Antig. 814. On
the participle κομιούμενοι is, as if it were a verb, suspended another,
which, together with the words following, seems to show the reason
why they shall thus suffer, and in which the Apostle, with great
spirit, resumes the charges just before made.

Ἔν ἡμέρᾳ. This is variously interpreted. Some, as Pott, Ro-
senm., and Schleus., take it (by an ellipsis of ἐκάστῃ) for daily. Est.
and Grot., ad breve tempus. But it is justly remarked by Slade, that
the former would require καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ; and the latter, eis ἡμέραν
(ἐφ᾽ ἡμέραν, he means). I should not, however, rest much upon
minute exceptions of this kind (since ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι, and many
other expressions of the Apostle, would be’vainly sought in the Clas-
sical writers), but that I conceive the sense (as Mr. Slade has shown)
arising from both the above interpretations, is very inferior to that
which the common one yields (in which I must acquiesce), namely,
in the day-time. And this is defended by Rom. 13, 12 & 13. 1 Thess.
5, 7., and by what we know of the manners and customs of the East
in every age; for (as Rosenm. says) drunkenness in the day-time is
seldom committed in the hot countries of the East (see Wets.).
And (I would add) about sunset the chief meal is made, to intemper-
ance in which, indeed, the τρυφὴν seems rather to point; but the
ἡ δον. may as well admit the othersense. I find, too, in Plut. Arat. 6.
ἡδονὰς καὶ πύτους μεθημερίνους mentioned as areproach. It is pos-
sible, too, that the Apostle might also have in view the ὀπίσω σαρκὸς
ἐν τῆ ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους, supra, ver. 10, Thus, among:
the reproaches with which Demosthenes overwhelms his great rival
orator, we,find de Corona ὃ. μ. ἡ μητὴρ cou τοῖς μεθημερινοῖς γάμοις
ἐν τῇ κλισίᾳ χρωμένη.

714 2 PETER, CHAP. II.

The Apostle thus proceeds, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι, “ they are spots and
blemishes,” i. e. a scandal to the Christian profession. Abstract for
concrete. Judesays σπιλάδες, Σπῖλος signifies astain ; and μῶμος
imports what we call an eye-sore, or blemish, literally, what a pur-
chaser wonld find fault with. (See Benson.)

13. ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν Tals ἀπάταις αὐτῶν, συνευωχού-
μενοι ὑμῖν. This is a somewhat obscure sentence,
and variously interpreted. or ἀπάταις some, with
a very few MSS., would read ayarais. And this
seems to be countenanced by the passage of Jude:
but there is so little authority for it, and it has so
much the air of an emendation, that the soundest
Critics reject it, retaining the ararais. ‘The words
are explained, by some recent Commentators (in-
cluding Elsner and Rosenm.), of the wanton artifices
by which these persons sought to seduce the women
they found at the love-feasts to their base purposes.
(See Rosenm.) And this is supported by an antient
Scholiast ap. Matth., as also by Cucumen.; and is
somewhat countenanced by the verse following.
But, as Pott observes, that sense cannot fairly be
elicited from the words. And he, in conjunction
with Schleus., explains: “ oblectantes se in frau-
dibus suis et dolis, quibus utuntur ad alios decipien-
dos, et pecunia commungendos.” But this is too
bold, and is little agreeable to the context. Mr.
Slade interprets: ** Committing excess, when they
feast with you, by means of their deceits and impos-
ture.” This I am not sure that I understand.
Upon the whole, since the interpretation of Elsner is
supported by the antients, and quite agreeable to
the context, it must not (I think) be rejected on
account of any petty exceptions to the phraseology.
For the ὑμῖν, which, Pott says, is required, may be
understood from the ὑμῖν in the next clause.

14. ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος, Kal ἀκατα-
παύστους ἁμαρτίας, ““ Having eyes full of (and gloting
on) the adulteress, and that never cease from lasci-
viousness or wanton imaginations.” See Benson and
Doddr., partly from whom Rosenm. explains: ‘* Qui
oculos habent plenos adultera, sunt impuri homines,

2 PETER, CHAP. II. 715

qui ex adulterz prasentis intuitu oculos pascunt, ἡ
absentis imaginem quasi vivam et nunquam evanes-
centem in oculis ferunt, adeoque fervore quodam
atque furore libidinis correpti sunt.”* For ἀκατα-
παύστους some MSS. have ἀκατάπαυστα. But that
is a mere emendation. The general sentiment is
well expressed by Benson thus: They are men of
insatiable lust: and in their eyes we might have
read the lasciviousness of their hearts.

14. δελεάϑοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, “ laying baits
for unstable minds (i.e. persons not confirmed in
Christian truth and practice) to draw them into
error and lead them into vice.”

Now to these the Apostle subjoins another trait,
which bears great affinity to luxury and lascivious-
ness, namely, covetousness ; and this is expressed in
the strongest terms, even ‘‘ a heart exercised with
insatiable avarice,’ which indicates a deep-rooted
and settled habit. I would compare Joseph. 1246,
11. γυμνάϑοντες τὴν ἀπόνοιαν.

The Apostle then indignantly adds: κατάρας τέκνα !
by which are denoted persons the most execrable.

15. καταλιπόντες τὴν εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν, “© After they
have deserted the true religion, the way which the
Apostles have pointed out.” Acts 13,10. This is
introductory to the comparison which follows.

᾿Επλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ 600 τοῦ Βα-
λαὰμ, τοῦ Βοσὸρ. ‘The force of the comparison rests
in this, that as Balaam counselled the Moabites to
entice the Israelites to illicit connection with their
women, and thus lead them into idolatry, and draw
on them the heavy punishment of God, so these

* Here Wets. cites Timeus ap. Longin. p. 20. τὴν ἀνεψιὰν ἑτέρῳ
δοθεῖσαν---ὡρπάσαντα ἀπαλθεῖν, ὅ τις ἂν ἐποίησε ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς κόρας,
μὴ πόρνας ἔχων; Ladd Max. Tyr. Diss. 26, 11, 25. ὦ λίχνου ἐρωτος
καὶ ἀδίκων ἐγυπυιων καὶ ὀφθαλμῶν πονηρῶν" & infra ὃ. 8. ὅταν οἱ
ὀφθαλμοὶ λιχνώωσιν. Soph. Tr. 548. ὧν ἀφαρπάξειν φιλεῖ ὀφθαλμὸς
ἄνθος. Propert. 2, 12, 12. oculi sunt in amore duces. See also
Eurip, Hipp. 525.

716 2 PETER, CHAP. Il.

false teachers, by giving Christians a licence to com-
mit immorality, namely, for the purpose of gratifyin
their own avarice, in like manner called forth the
severe castigation of God. Such is the view taken
by most Commentators. Perhaps, however, Peter
had regard only to the avarice of Balaam, like whom
these false teachers, for the purpose of gratifying
that base passion, make a gain of the Gospel in the
way above-mentioned. (Rosenm.) I cannot but
prefer the common and more extensive sense, since
that seems to be required by the force of the words
themselves, and the circumstances of Balaam’s case
(on which see Whitby and Mackn.). Tor though
we know nothing as to his immorality, yet avarice
tempted him to commit a base violation of his duty
as a Prophet, just as in the case of these false
teachers, avarice and sensuality tempted them to
falsify the Gospel, that they might make it the more
productive of gain to expend on their own lusts.

Βοσὸρ is thought to be a corruption of Βεωρ. See
Grot. and Light., as also Rosenm. and Mackn. Ὃς
μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγαπησεν, who was fond of gain even
at the price of unrighteousness.” Rosenm. thinks it
doubtful whether he received the gifts brought by
the messengers or not; for that is not directly af-
firmed in Scripture. But, from the character of the
man, there can be no doubt but that he did; and
this. the. Jewish Interpreters, from Josephus and
Philo downwards, have always taken for granted,
and to it Peter evidently refers. See Whitby, who
compares Deut. 23, 5. and Nehem. 13, 2.

10. ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν----παραφρονίαν, “ But he had a
rebuker of his iniquity ; for the dumb beast, speak-
ing with the voice of a man, checked the mad folly
of the Prophet.” At ὑποϑύγιον must be understood
κτῆνος or Swov, Angl. a pack-horse, or ass, a beast of
burden, and sometimes a horse generally: but, as
Grot. observes, ὑποϑυγ. is always used in the Sept. to
denote an ass or mule; for horses Judea did not

2 PETER. CHAP. II. TF

produce. On the miracle itself, at which infidels
and sceptics have so unreasonably stumbled, this is
no place to treat.

Ilapadpoviay is, I suspect, an idiotical or provincial
term for παραφρόνησιν or παραφροσύνην. It must not
be too rigorously interpreted, but, like ἄνοια in the
Classical writers, taken to denote extreme folly.
Nay, in this sense, even μονία occurs in Dionys. Hal.
1, 438,11. Seealso Ecclesiast. 9, 3. And we often
use similar words in a mild sense. ‘Though the blind
and infatuated folly of Balaam throughout this whole
transaction, and his thus opposing the Divine will,
were little less than madness.

17. οὗτοί εἰσι πηγαὶ ἄνυδροι, “ These teachers and
preachers are wells without water,” i.e. they grie-
vously disappoint the expectation of all who seek
the refreshment of gospel truth. «“ They pretended
(observes Benson) to be fountains of deeper know-
ledge and greater purity than any others; but, when
aman came thirsting after truth and righteousness,
how great must be his disappointment when he found
nothing but emptiness and vanity.” In this compa-
rison (adds he) is pointed out their ostentation and
hypocrisy. ‘They made a show of something profit-
able and refreshing ; but it was only a mere show.
They were altogether empty and unprofitable: all
appearance, but no reality.” See also Mackn.

17. νεφέλαι ὑπὸ λαίλαπος ἐλαυνόμιενοι. Tor νεφέλαι
(which, however, occurs in Jude 12.), many MSS.,
Versions, Editions, and Fathers, have ὀμίχλαι. “ Now
ὀμίχλαι (says Rosenm.) are condensed clouds, and
therefore very dark, yet not yielding rain.” And
this (if it be not an emendation) seems more appro-
priate. For as black clouds excite a greater expec-
tation of rain, so when they yield none, the disap-
pointment isthe greater. ‘The comparison intended
is plain. See Benson.

The denunciation then uttered against them is
truly awful, and the terms expressive of it most sub-
lime. Σκότου is meant (the Commentators say) to

718 2 PETER, CHAP. II.

increase the signification of ϑόφου, i. 6. it is for ϑόφος ὁ
σκοτεινώτατος. Pott» compares the terms χθόνος πέδον
συμφορὰ πάθους, and cenum luti. The god. is used,
as at ver. 4. (and also Jude 6 & 13.), to denote tar-
tarus, or hell, And so Homer, cited by Schleus.
Lex.: τάρταρον ἠερόεντα, Sogov rep. It is observed,
by Rosenm., that the punishments of the other world
were adumbrated not only under the image of burn-
ing, but utter darkness; as Matt. 8, 12. 22, 13.
25, 30.

18. ὑπέρογκα γὰρ ματαιότητος φθεγγόμενοι. Here
(18 & 12.) we have the sentiment at ver. 17. further
enlarged on, and the Apostle passes on from the
metaphorical to the natural mode of expression.
(Pott.) The words of this verse are well paraphrased
by Benson thus: “ They, in high-sounding words,
and lofty, unmeaning phrases, make vain, boasting,
and arrogant pretences to a more thorough and sub-
lime knowledge of religion, than the true Apostles
and Prophets: but, by preaching such doctrines as
give indulgence to the lusts of the flesh, that is, to
lasciviousness, they lay a bait for those who, by em-
bracing Christianity, were thoroughly reformed, and
had escaped from such as still continue to live in the
error of idolatry and vice.’ (See his notes.) On
ὑπέρογκα. examples are adduced by Wets.; but not
such as are apposite. I would add the following.
Aristoph. Ran. 971. who calls the diction of A‘schyl.
οἰδοῦσαν ὑπὸ κομπασμάτων Kal ῥημάτων ἐπαχθῶν. Po-
lyeen. 749. 5. f. οὐ μόνον ἐξαρνος οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι καὶ
πλείονα ὄγκον προστιθεὶς. The genitive ματαιότητος is
(by Hebraism) for the cognate adjective. Ἂν ἐπιθυ-
μίαις is not (as some say) for εἰς ἐπτθ., but the ἐν sig-
nifies, like the Hebr. 3, by, through. ᾿Ασελγεία is
exegetical of the preceding. For ὄντως some very
few MSS. and afew Versions read ὀλίγως. And this
is approved by some Critics. But the word is
hardly found any where else, and can scarcely admit
of the sense viv, which they assign to it. I suspect
the reading to have originated in a mere error by

Q PETER, CHAP. II. 719

mistake of the letters in the uncial characters, in
which the words are strikingly similar. Thus
ὌΝΤΩΣ," ΟΛΙΓΩΣ,. Certainly ὄντος is far more apt.
Mr. Slade thinks it was an intentional alteration.
And he ingeniously accounts for it. (See his note.)

19. ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, 1. 6. “ They
held out to them both religious liberty, or a license
to do what they pleased, without fear of Him who is
invisible ; representing that true knowledge or right
faith would excuse defects in practice ; and political
liberty, pretending that the civil magistrates had
nothing to do with them.” See more in Whitby and
Benson. Now this, it is said, they did, being all the
while δοῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς, 1. 6. enslaved to corruption,
and therefore little able to teach true liberty. Φϑορὰ
is here usedasat1,4. “Q γὰρ τις ἥττηται; τούτῳ καὶ
δεδούλωται. ‘The sense here is plain, and is the same
as at Joh. 8, 34. and Rom. 6, 16. where see the
notes. Pott thinks this has the air of a proverb.
Ἡττᾶσθαι τινι is for ἡττάσθαι ὑπὸ tivos,—a sort of
Latinism. See on this subject a fine passage of Cow-
per’s Task, Β. 5., commencing with: “ He is the free
man whom the truth makes free,” and ending with:
* Whom God delights in, and in whom he dwells.”
See also Mackn. or Slade.

20. εἰ yap ἀποφυγόντες---πρώτων. ‘The sense is
plainly that, now having become Christians, they are
amenable to a severer punishment for vice than if
they had continued Heathens. He that knew his
Lord’s will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many
stripes. Τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου, ““ the contagion of
immorality which prevailed in the world.” Γέγονεν
αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. Very similar
words occur at Matt. 12, 45. and Luke 11, 16. Wets.
compares Thucyd. 1, 86. διπλασίας Snel ἄξιοί εἰσιν,
ὕτι ἀντ᾽ ἀγαθῶν κάκοι γεγένηνται.

* With which I would compare Eurip. Hec. 858. Φεῦ, οὐκ ἔστι
θνητῶν, ὅστις ἔστ᾽ ἐλεύθερος. Ἢ χρημάτων γὰρ δοῦλος ἐστιν, ἢ
7 τύχης, Ἢ πλῆθος αὐτὸν πόλεος, ἢ νόμων τρῶς, Εἴργουσι χρῆσθαι
μὴ κατὰ γνώμην Tpdross,

720 2 PETER, CHAP. II. ΠῚ.

Q1. κρεῖττον yap—evroays. Kp., preferable and in-
volving less blame and consequently punishment ;
since ignorance might have been some excuse. I
would compare a similar sentiment in Max. Tyr.
Diss. 12, 6. fin. 1, 226. φιλοσοφία δὲ καὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ
ἀρετὴ τοῖς ἅπαξ. φευγουσιν ἀβατος μένει καὶ ἀδιάλλακτος.
The phrase ἁγία ἐντολὴ to denote the injunctions of
the Gospel, is somewhat rare. The rest of the
phraseology is plain.

22. συμβέβηκε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς παροιμίας. To
7.7., “what is said in the proverb.” Rosenm.
compares from Lucian: τοῦτο ἐκεῖνο τὸ τῆς παροιμίας.
There is here reference to ¢wo proverbs, one that on
the dog, found in Prov. 26, 11., with this very appli-
cation. Compare the Hebr. and the Sept. Other
vestiges are found in allusions of Classical authors.
So, among the passages collected from the Philolo-
gists by Pott, there is Arrian Epict. 4, 11. ἄπελθε καὶ
χοίρῳ διαλέγου, iva ἐν βορβώρῳ μὴ κυλίηται. Yet this
(as well as the others I have seen) alludes to the
sow as fond of wallowing in mire, (which, Arist. H.
A. 8, 6. says, helps to fatten them. And see H. A.
5,45.); but I find no vestige of any proverb of this
kind in the Classical writers. It is therefore proba-
bly an Oriental one; and there is a faint allusion to
it in a passage of Sohar cited by Schoettg.: ‘* Voluit
Lot reverti ad sordes suas.”

CHAP. III.

The Apostle here gives them to understand that
he wrote this and the former Epistle, to put them in
mind of Christ’s final advent to judgment, and to ex-
cite them to prepare for it. But withal informs them
that they must expect to hear the notion ridiculed
by foolish and wicked men. To show how ill
founded is this ridicule, he intimates that the first
constitution of the earth was such as to occasion the
Flood, and the present one tends to a dissolution by

2 PETER, CHAP. III. 721

fire, which will take place at its appointed time; and
that the reason why it is delayed, is, to give men an
opportunity for previous preparation [a reason for
this delay also assigned by St. Paul. Kdit.]. That
when the purposes of God are accomplished, the
day of the Lord will come suddenly, and the world
be destroyed by an universal conflagration; after
_ which there will be new heavens and a new earth for
the righteous. Finally, that it highly behoved them
to prepare for that awful consummation. (Bens.)

Ver. 1, 2. ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμιῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἶλι-
κρινῆ διάνοιαν, “in (both of) which I stir up your
sincere and well-meaning hearts by admonition.”
With ἐν ais for ἐν 4, ὡς καὶ ἐν τῇ eat Pott com-
pares a similar synthesis in Anton. 2 2, 4. Διεγειρὼν € ἐν
ὑπομνήσει he takes for διεγείρειν καὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν. And
he considers διεγ.----διανοίαν as put, by hypallage, for
“ excite to the preservation of a sincere mind.” And
so Rosenm. But this is too harsh. ‘The sense, I
conceive, is what is expressed above. Their minds
were worthy and well meaning, but needed exhorta-
tation. See Benson.

2, μνησθῆναι---προφητών, “ that ye may be mindful
of the things predicted by the holy Prophets,”
namely, in the way of caution concerning the de-
ceivers before mentioned. So Rosenm. Or it may
be understood, in a general way, of the things per-
taining to the advent and kingdom of Christ. On ay.
see the note on 2 Pet. 1, 21. Kal τῆς τών ἀποστόλων
ἡμῶν ἐντολῆς, τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος, “ the injunctions
and doctrines of us who are the Apostles of the
Lord and Saviour.” A trajectio for καὶ τῆς ἐντολῆς
ἑμῶν, τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος. So Ro-
senm. and Pott, the latter of whom compares Jude
17. Other modes of interpretation may be seen in
Wolf, Bens., and Pott. But all involve more or less
of harshness. Pott and Rosenm. unite in taking
ἐντολὴ to mean doctrine, which I have included, but
as a secondary sense ; for it has (I think) been proved
by Benson that the other is the primary one.

[2]

VOL. VIII. JA

722 2 PETER, CHAP. III.

8. ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽ ἐσ χατου τῶν ἡμερῶν---ἐμπαῖκται.

After τῶν ἡμερῶν some MSS. Versions and Fathers add ἐν ἐμ-
παιγμόνῃ, Which will be for ἐν ἐμπαιγμῃ, since ἐμπαιγμὸς and ἐμ-
παῖγμα denote derision, ridicule. hese words, whether they be
joined with ἐλεύσονται, (as being put for ἐν ἔμπαιγμονῇ,) or be con-
strued with ἐμπαῖκται, are not a mere Hebrew redundancy, to in-
crease the strength ofthe sentiment. (Rosenm.) By the πρῶτον is
not so much to be understood what was to happen first, as (with
Bens.) a premise from whence they might conclude they ought to
remember the predictions of the Prophets and the injunctions of
the Apostles. See the note on 1, 20. And so Pott and Rosenm.
Ἔπ᾽ ἐσχέτου τῶν ἡμερῶν, sub. μέρους. Some understand this
of the period of the last dispensation to man, the whole of the times
of the New Testament. But this is too harsh. Others, as Bens.,
interpret it of the Jewish system. But, as the destruction of Jerusa-
lem happened about three years after, the Apostle would scarcely
have said ἐλεύσονται ἐμπαῖκται. Yet it is remarked by Mr. Slade,
that the scoffers were soon to come; otherwise there would have
been no need to caution the disciples against them; and in the
days of Jude (see his Ep.18 and 19.) they were come; and there-
fore the passage relates to some event or judgment near at hand.
To this I cannot but assent; and, though the interpretation of Pott
and Rosenm. tandem, posthac, is very plausible, yet it seems so much
a device for the nonce, to escape the difficulty, that I prefer under-
standing the words, with many Commentators, and, amongst the
rest, Mr, Slade, both of the destruction of Jerusalem and the final
advent to judgment ; and I cannot but accede to his mode (at ver.
7.) of accounting for the two subjects being here connected.

Ἐμπαῖκτοι, scoffers. Benson remarks that he should have taken
these to have been the Sadducees among the Jews, and the Epicu-
reans among’ the Heathens (who made a jest of religion anda future
state), had it not been for the parallel passage of Jude 18 and 19.,
from which it appears that they had been professors of the Christian
religion, though now tainted with Sadducean and Epicurean so-
phisms. As to ridicule being the test of truth, or the way to find it
out, that (he thinks) is disputable. ‘‘ Certain it is (continues he)
that such scoffers seldom attend to evidence, and seem not much
concerned to find out and retain the truth, however they may excite
persons well disposed to enquiry to place it in a clearer light, and to
show their ridicule ill founded.” See also Mackn.

8. κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὑτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμιενοι, ““ liv-
ing after their evil lusts.’ See Mack. and Bens. ap.
Slade; and compare 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim. 3, 1. Ro-
senm. extends the zop. to sentiments as well as morals
and actions.

4. καὶ r€yovres’ [Ποῦ ἐστιν---αὐτοῦ. By the αὐτοῦ is
plainly meant Christ. From the character of the men,
this cannot import any enquiry in the promises of

2 PETER, CHAP. III. γ 8

Christ’s coming in Scripture; nor is it to be thought
(with some) that they expected his second coming
and thought it long. ‘This is merely to be regarded
asa popular form of expression, not dissimilar to
some in our own language, in which was implied a dis-
belief that he will come αὐ all, and an insinuation
that there was no hope of an event so long delayed.
So Bens. paraphrases ; ‘‘ Where is the promised ad-
vent of Christ? what proof or sign of his appearing
again?” And he adds, that by “this coming is evi-
dently meant the advent to judgment; as the con-
text requires. See the note on 2 Thess. 2, 1. Thus
they stifled at once the fears of the wicked, and the
hopes of the righteous. Indeed there were some
things in the then state of the world, which, from a
misunderstanding of our Lord’s predictions, might
encourage such scepticism.

4. ἀφ᾽ ἧς yap οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτω δια-
μένει ἀπ᾽ ἀςχῆς κτίσεως. Rosenm. paraphrases: * Our
Fathers have successively died, nor has any one
come to life. And as from the creation of the
world all things are carried on by an alternate course
of living and dying, so does the order of nature re-
main the same. Thus they will fancy, that what has
been so long deferred will never come to pass.”

5—7. The Apostle means here to refute the scoffers, who said
that the whole system of nature remained, and would always remain
in the state it had been in from the creation, nor would the world
ever be destroved (ver. 4). Against these, then, he shows that all
things have not remained in the state in which they were created by
God; for that the world (i. e. our earth with its atmosphere) had
once been destroyed by water (ver. 5 and 6.), and would again be
destroyed in like manner, even by fire. This those scoffers did not,
or would not, know. (Rosenm, )

5. λανθάνει γὰρ αὐτοὺς τοῦτο θέλοντας. Most Commentators
and Translators, from Beza aud Luther, take the θέλοντας for θε-
λόντως, Or ἐβελέμξα, sponte. But this yields a precarious and frigid
sense, Θελ. has (I think) no where that signification at the end of
asentence. Wells and Slade interpret, wilfully, But for this there
isno authority. I prefer, with Heins., Mede, Hamm., and many
recent Commentators, as Rosenm., to take θέλοντας for existimantes,
quia existimant,—a frequent sense both in Greek and Latin. This
indeed would properly require the article, which, however, might
easily, by a writer so little attentive to the nicer proprieties of the

SA 2

724 2 PETER, CHAP. III.

language, have been omitted ; or it might have been absorbed by
τοὺς preceding. The sense, then, seems to be: ‘‘ those who think,”
namely, ὃ ὅτι πάντα οὕτω διαμένει.

By the οὐρανοὶ (as Rosenm. observes) are meant, not the etherial,
but the aéreal heaven, the atmosphere encircling the globe. The
Apostle, it must be observed, speaks in the popular manner, and
not with philosophical precision, which indeed in that age was very
inconsiderable, compared to the knowledge of our great modern
Astronomers.

The words καὶ γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ de’ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα are variously
explained. Most Commentators take συνεστῶσα to mean standing
out: and Camerar. regards the ἐξ as put for ἐκτὸς and πρὸς ὕδατι,
and the διὰ for pera ὕδατος, or ἐν μέσῳ ὕδατος. Grot. refers the
συνεστ., by zeugma, to the heaven as well as the earth; so that
Peter may be understood as saying that the earth emerged from
the water; and thus συνεστῶσα will be equivalent to σύστασιν ἔχ-
ουσα. But the Apostle seems not to have spoken with reference to
cosmogony, but (as most recent Commentators after Capellus
suppose,) meant to have συνεστ. taken in the sense consist, subsist.
See Kypke, Elsn., Pole, and Rosenm., or Slade.

5. τῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ, ‘by the fiat of God.” So else-
where in Scripture.

6. δι’ ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυθεὶς ἀπώλετο.

The dv ὧν is by some, as Beza and Rosenm., taken for διὸ, proinde.
Pott, however, objects that for this there is no authority. And he, with
Causaub. and many others, subauds ὑδάτων. ‘To which Rosenm.
objects, that the singular just after occurs. Either of the two
interpretations may be admitted ; but not the subaudition of οὐρα-
νῶν, With the antients, and Mede, Beza, Wets., Whitby, Wolf, and
Benson. The ὁ τότε κόσμος is by almost all explained, the world
and its inhabitants, as they existed at the Deluge recorded by Moses.
But since the opposition is not ὁ viv κόσμος, but οἱ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ
yn, Rosenm. thinks that the Apostle distinguishes these heavens and
this earth from others. And he would understand, not the deluge
in the time of Noah, but some former one; adopting the opinion of
Burnet, in his Theory of the Earth, L. 3., C. 11., that there was
quite a different appearance of earth and heaven before the deluge
in the time of Noah. He then adds: “" Verisimilis est mihi eorum
sententia, qui statuunt, orbem terrarum diu post primam illam uni-
versi hujus creationem, inundatione quadam universali, illo Noachico
diluvio multo terribiliore et diuturniore penitts esse devastatum,
omnibusque quibus antea ornatus erat rebus spoliatun; renovatum
autem ‘deinde a Deo, et habitationem factam esse hominum et ani-
malium, hancque metamorphosin describi a Mose.” A conjecture
indeed highly ingenious, and which is thought by natural Philoso-
phers to be somewhat confirmed by the recent discoveries in geology.
But it is in vain to seek for any support to it in the words of the
Apostle, which, if taken in a popular sense, are quite consistent with
the deluge in the time of Noah ; and as that is especially adduced as

an example and warning in a similar passage of Matt. 24, 37—39.,

so it seems to be meant here.

2 PETER, CHAP. III. 725

7. οἱ δὲ νῦν οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῇ αὐτοῦ yoyw τεθησαυρισ-
μένοι εἰσι.

“Βαϊ the present heaven and earth, by the same fiat (of God)
remain,” Τεθησαυρισμένοι is well rendered by Schl. Lex. repositi
et asservati. Πυρὶ τηρούμενοι, ““ being reserved unto fire unto the day
of judgment, in which the wicked will come to perdition.” That
the world would be sometime destroyed by fire was the opinion not
only of the Jews, but of most of the Heathen Philosophers, espe-
cially the Stoics. Of this the Commentators adduce abundant
proofs and illustrations, which I must omit; only observing, that
no good natural Philosopher could come to any other conclusion,
who reflected on the combustible and agitated state of the interior of
this globe. From the interesting account of the Island of Owhyhee
lately published by an intelligent Missionary we find, that the whole
of that Island, of more than 4000 square miles, seems to be situated
on the funnel of an immense submarine volcano, since the whole Island
is composed of Lava in different stages of decomposition, and changes
of many miles in extent, by which whole bays are filled up, &c., show
the awful power of the fire beneath.

8. ἐν δὲ τοῦτο---ἡμέρα μία. ‘The ἐν τοῦτο μὴ λανθα-
νέτω ὑμιᾶς is a most solemn formula of soliciting seri-
ous attention ; and the scope of the following passage
is, to show why the Lord defers the last judgment
from day to day; namely, out of his singular
patience and clemency: and this is prefaced» with
the remark, that periods often seem to us long, which
are short. The saying that one day is with God as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,
was frequent with the Hebrews; as we find from the
Rabbinical writers. It occurs in Ps. 90,4. The
Apostle means, that we are only to take especial care
that that time, whensoever it shall come, may not
find us unprepared. That to our minds some things
seem long, and some things short; but to God
nothing is either long or short ; ; and he shows the
same faithfulness in “what he renders late as what
early. (Rosenm.) See Bens. and Mackn. Here
Wets. compares Plut. 111 c. and 554 D. λέγω δὲ
πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸν πολὺν χρόνον" ἐπεὶ τοῖς γε θεοῖς πᾶν ἀνθρω-
πίνου βίου διάστημα τὸ μηδὲν ἐστι" καὶ τὸ νὺν ἀλλὰ μὴ
πρὸ ἐτών λ. τοιοῦτον ἐστιν, οἷον τὸ δείλης, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρωΐ ᾿
στρεβλοῦν, ἢ 7 κρεμαννύναι τὸν | πονηρὸν.

9. οὐ βραδύνει ὁ Κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (ὥς τινες βρα-
δύτητα ἡγοῦνται), * ‘Phe Lord does not procrastinate
as to his promises, as some think (attributing to him)

726 2 PETER, CHAP. III.

a slowness of performance.” Such appears to be the
true sense of these words, somewhat obscure from
brevity. At the erayy. is to be supplied ἕνεκα, quod
attinet ad, or the like: and by promise is meant ful-
filment of promise, by a common metonymy : so that
there is no need to supply (with Schleus.) ἀναπλήρω-
σιν, or τελείωσιν ; Still less, to resort to any change
of ‘reading (with Grot.), or unauthorized construc-
tion (with Mackn.).

9. ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ἡμᾶς, “ But shows long-
suffering towards us,” i. e. does this, to evince his
long- suffering towards us. As the Philological
Commentators here fail us, the following passages
may be acceptable. Aristoph. Av. 1620., é ἐὰν TIS ἀν-
θρώπων ἱ ἱερεῖον τῷ Θεών εὐξάμενος, εἶτα διασοφίϑηται,
λέγων, μενέτοι Θεοὶ (the Gods will wait), ἀναπραξόμεν
καὶ ταῦτα" where the Schol. explains: ἀνεξίκακοι καὶ
οὐκ εὐθέως τιμωρούμενοι. Schol. on Soph. Trach. 274.,
οἷοι οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Θεῖον ὑβριξόμιενον κηρυττεῖ, ὃ λίαν ἐστὶν
GNC τ κυ τατον, With the sentiment compare Rom. 2,
44-95 2 22., where see the notes.

‘9. εἰς μετανοίαν yweyout. This seems to be a

opular form for μετανοεῖν, though it is found in
Plut., cited by Wets.: εἰς μετανοίαν ἐπὶ τοῖς πραχθεῖσι
χώρησας. Kypke compares Philemon apud Stob.
serm. 66., p. 421., γαμεῖν ὃς ἐθέλει, εἰς μετανοίαν ἔρχεται.
Yet I think, with Rosenm., that it is ἃ stronger ex-
pression than μετανοεῖν, and may be rendered se con-
vertere, confugere ad penitentiam, to betake oneself
to repentance.

O. ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ. The
words ἐν νυκτὶ are not found in some antient MSS.,
many Versions, and some Fathers: and as one can
so much more easily account for their addition than
their omission, they are rightly cancelled, or brack-
eted. Yet ifthey be not understood, much of the force
of the comparison will be lost. By the ἠμέρα is un-
doubtedly meant the day of judgment, which will
come upon men as unexpectedly as a thief in the
night.

Οἱ οὐρανοὶ, 1. 6. the aéreal heaven, the atmosphere ; asat ver. 6.
‘Por2ndor, ‘with a mighty crash.” Hesych. explains it σφοδρῶς,

2 PETER, CHAP. III. 727

ἡχητικόν. It signifies properly whiz; and then the noise made by
any falling body (so Lycophr. cited by Wets.: Πύργων dm’ ἄκρων
πρὸς νεόδμητον vexty ῥοιξηδὸν ἀκβράσασα κύμβαχον δέμας. and
Hero ap. Museus 339. ῥοιξηδὸν προκάρηνος ἀπ᾽ ἡλιβάτου πέσε
πύργου), or body impelled to perpetually accelerated motion, ‘The
word (Bens. observes) is used to express the hissing noise of a dart
passing through the air, the flight of birds, the swift motion of the
winds, the running of a chariot, the rulling of an impetuous tor-
rent, the noise of soldiers running to battle, the crackling of a
wide-spreading fire, the rushing sound of a violent storm or tem-
pest.” Παρέρχεσθαι properly signifies to pass by, and also away,
and also (as here) to perish, i. e. as to the purpose it had served, So
Bens. observes, that “ it isnot necessary to suppose, with some, that
the world will be annihilated, or removed with its atsmosphere, from
its present orbit. It may be said to ‘ pass away,’ if the form and
constitution be altered; as the old world is at ver. 6. said to have
been destroyed by water.”

Στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται. Commentators are not
agreed what sense to ascribe to στοιχεῖα. Some understand the
air. Others the stars, or heavenly bodies) And so Mede, Wolf,
Whitby, Wells, ἃς, But, as Rosenm. rightly remarks, that inter-
pretation rests on no sufficient ground. Slade thinks it cannot
properly mean the elements: and he would refer it to οἱ οὐρανοὶ,
which goes before, and explain it (with Mackn.) of the electric
matter, the sulphureous vapours, and whatever floats in the air,
together with the air itself. But this cannot (I think) be admitted.
I most approve of the interpretation of Rosenm. (from Bens.) :
partes, etiam aspectabiles, ex quibus omnes res naturales, que sub
celo sunt, componuntur. So Bens.: ‘‘ Suppose that the earth, air,
and water shall all be subdued by the prevalence of fire; and their
stamina, or first and constituent principles, quite altered thereby ;
then it may very properly be said, The elements being on fire shall be
dissolved. Again, what is here called the elements being dissolved,
is at ver. 12. called their being melted. ‘hey are not, therefore, to
be annihilated, but subdued, and greatly altered by the prevalence
of fire.”

Καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακαήσεται. By the ἔργα Rosenm.
(after Heins.) understands, queecunque industria hominis aut labore
parta ministerio ejusdem cedunt atque usui, dicuntur: inter que,
ut facultates ac opes, ita qu# ex arte ac ingenio proveniunt. Ἔν
αὐτῷ, for iz’ αὐτῷ. The sense is: “ the works of both nature and
art, each of the most stupendous or exquisite sort, all shall be in-
volved in overwhelming ruin.” To use the words of our English
Eschylus, ‘‘ The cloud-capt towers, the gorgeous palaces, the so-
lemn temples, the great globe itself, and all that it inherits, shall
dissolve, and, like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a rack
behind !”

11,12. ποταποὺς δεῖ ὑπάρχειν μας. ἹΠοταπὸς, is
more significant than ποῖος. What follows contains

728 2 PETER, CHAP. III.

the answer to this interrogation. And Benson ob-
serves that, in the common way, the question and
answer are intermingled. Indeed this is frequent
in the popular style. Possibly, however, there may
be no interrogation at all, but only an exclamation.

In εὐσεβείαις, which is exegetical of ἐν ἁγίαις dva-
orgo@ais, the plural refers to the number. The
words προσδοκώντας, &c. are either in answer to the
interrogation, or exegetical of the preceding, for (δεῖ
ὑμᾶς) mpocdoKkwyTas εἶναι. Zmevdw is not here to be
taken in its usual active sense, but in one in which
it occasionally occurs in good authors, adfectare,
earnestly desire. And this is what the Vulg. and
Beza meant by properantes in, or ad, which Pott,
without reason, censures. ‘The ad answers to ad in
ad-fectare. Rosenm. well explains it cupidus esse,
adfectare, avide desiderare ; referring (after Kypke)
to Eurip. Hec. 1175 and 120. (See more in Wolf,
Wets., and Kypke.) This indeed is a very frequent
sense in the best writers.

At δι’ ἣν Rosenm. subauds ἡμέραν, taking it for
ἡ ἡμέρᾳ. And so the E. V. But I prefer, with
Bens. 3 Groti,; Esta Bisc., δες: παρουσίαν. ΠΙυρούμενοι,
i. e. “ melted like metal in a furnace :” for the verb
is often so used. ‘Tyxeras, ‘‘are (to be) dissolved.”
So Is. 64, 1. ὄρη τακήσεται. See notes on ver. 7
and 10.

13. καινοὺς δὲ οὐρανοὺς ---προσδοκώμιν, 1. 6. a NeW
universe. And this the Hebrews designated by the
expression, as Gen. 1,1. The sense is, that from
the reliques of the antient fabric another and better
will arise. ‘This may be understood either physi-
cally, of a better corporeal world, or figuratively, of
the new state of things in the eternal and blessed
abodes of aaye (Ros.) Κατὰ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα. 15.
θὅ, 17. ἃ 66, 22. See more in Bens. It is proved
by Whitby and Mackn., that there can here be no
reference to the Millenium. See their notes, or the
extracts in Slade.

13. ἐν οἷς δικαιοσύνη κατοικεῖ, “in which righteousness

2 PETER, CHAP. III. 729

alone (i. 6. the righteous) is to dwell, and not, as in
the present one (see Matt. 25, 32.), mixed with
wickedness” (i. 6. the wicked).

14. ταῦτα προσδοκῶντες, σπουδάσατε --- εἰρήνη,
‘¢ Wherefore, seeing that ye expect such things (are
sometime to happen) strive, by being spotless and
blameless, to be found of him in peace.” Or ἀσπιλ.
and ap. may be taken with εὐρεθηναι. The sense is
much the same. Ἐν eigyyy may be rendered, with
Carpz. and others, cum bona conscientia, i. e. in
peace with their consciences, or (as Pott explains)
with each other. But the context rather re-
quires the common interpretation, ‘‘in peace with
their great Judge.” An expression which can re-
quire no explanation. ‘Thus it is not necessary,
with Rosenm., to take it for εἰς εἰρήνην, “ for your
good and happiness.”

15. καὶ τὴν τοῦ Kugiov ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν, σωτηρίαν
ἠγεῖσθε, ““ And reckon (as you justly may) that this
long extended waiting, and forbearance of the Lord
is meant to be our salvation, 1. e. to promote it (by
giving us an opportunity for working it out).” See
Bens., whose subaudition, however, of εἰς is inad-
missible. On the sentiment I could adduce several
Classical passages, but I forbear.

15. καθὼς καὶ ὃ ἀγαπητὸς ὑμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος κατὰ
τήν αὐτῷ δοθεῖσαν σοφίαν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν. Rosenm. ob-
serves, that the καθῶς is not to be referred to the
preceding words only, but also to ver. 14. He does
not say that Paul used the same words, but that he
wrote of the same things.” Now ἀδελφὸς Peter
might well call him, since he was a brother Apostle
as well as brother Christian. ”*Eypobev tpi, ““ hath
“written to you.”* ΤῸ what Epistle this alludes

* It is well observed by Bens., that St. Peter addressed his Epistles
to the Christians dispersed in Asia Minor; and therefore the
ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν shows that some Epistles of St. Paul are here alluded
to, that were sent to the same persons.” Now, although we find
no Epistle of St. Paul immediately addressed to any of the pro-~
vinces mentioned at 1 Pet. 1, 1.; yet it is probable from Eph. 1, 1.
that all the Epistles (not excluding, as Doddr. think, even that to

730 2 PETER, CHAP. III.

Commentators are not agreed. The subject in
question is treated of at Rom. c. 2, 9 & 11., and
especially at Hebr. 10., and elsewhere. Indeed, St.
Peter is justified in saying that his beloved brother
has spoken of these things in all his Epistles. See
the long list of similar passages adduced from St.
Paul’s Epistles by Benson and Slade.

16. ἐν οἷς ἐστι δυσνόητά τινα---ἀπωλείαν. It has
been matter of great dispute among critics whether
ἐν ois, or ἐν αἷς, be the true reading. If the former
be adopted, the subjects will be meant. And this
is supported by incomparably the greater number of
MSS., and by most Commentators and critics. If
the latter be adopted, the Epistles themselves and
the Apostle’s method of treating the subjects will be
intended. And this is supported by some valuable
MSS., both the Syriac Versions, the Arab., &c. (See
Griesb.) It is also defended by Beza, Germ., Mill,
T. Smith, and Bens., and recently by a scholar
scarcely inferior to any of these, Dr. Maltby, Serm.
1, 419., who observes that it ‘‘ agrees infinitely better
with the context; though (for reasons which will
readily occur to the minds of critics) the other
might, at an early period, usurp its place.” Tor my
own part, I would retain the common reading, which
I think came from the Apostle: but it seems to me
probable that he had in mind as well the difficulty
of the style and manner, as the abstruseness of the
subjects. And it is strange Mr. Slade should so
warmly repel the “charge” of ‘“ obscurity” made
against St. Paul's Epistles; which he thinks the
greatest injustice. Surely if he had but considered
that many causes contribute to produce this, with-
out reflecting any blame on the Apostle, and im-

the Romans), though addressed to particular churches, were meant
for general circulation ; and therefore the Epistles to the Galatians,
Ephesians, Colossians, and Timothy, were in some measure meant
for the Asiatic churches in general. And at all events, there must
have been many among those to whom St. Peter addresses himself,
that were St, Paul's converts.

2 PETER, CHAP. III. 731

peaching the ways of Almighty Providence, he
would have forborne language so inconsistent with
his usual good sense.

On the nature of these difficulties many eminent
Commentators have treated. See the Preliminary
Essays and Dissertations of Mackn., the Preface of
Locke to his Paraphrase on the Epistles, and an ad-
mirable Sermon on this text by Bp. Atterbury, vol.
3. p. 29. On difficulty of interpretation in general
I would cite Jambl. de Vit. Pyth. C. 1. 5. f. τὸ μα-
θήμασιν ἀπεξενωμένοις καὶ τισὶν ἀποῤῥήτοις cupPdros
ἐπικεκρύφθαι, ψεύδεσί re καὶ νόθοις συγγράμμασιν ἐπισ-
κιάσεσθαι" ἄλλαις τε πολλαῖδ τοιαύταις δυσκολίαις παρα-
ποδίξεσθαι" ἐξαρκεῖ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἡ τῶν θεῶν βούλησις, μιεθ᾽, ἧς
καὶ τὰ τούτων ἔτι ἀπορώτερα δυνατὸν ὑπομένειν.

By the ἀμαθεὶς are meant those not well acquainted
with the subjects discussed, and also the style of
writing, and unskilled in interpretation in general.
᾿Αστηρικτοὶ, ““ without fixed or solid principles of
Christian knowledge.” ZrpeBactow, wrest, pervert.
See Slade. By the ws καὶ ras λοιπὰς γραφὰς Grot.
has rightly observed may be understood the Gospels
and Acts then published, and in the hands of most
Chirstians. But surely the books of the Old Testa-
ment, especially the prophetical ones, must be in-
cluded. And so Germ. and Hamm. Πρὸς τὴν ἰδιάν
αὐτῶν ἀπωλείαν. Most Commentators take the ἀπω-
λείαν to denote perdition, eternal punishment in an-
other world. Most recent ones render it ad perni-
ciem, namely (says Rosenm.), by approaching them
with an evil mind, and pernicious prejudices. So
Bens. : “ The fault was not in the Scriptures, but in
themselves. They were resolved to continue in
their vices, and to support themselves therein; and
came to read the Scriptures without a love of truth
and righteousness; and to find in them what would
answer their corrupt views.” ‘The truth perhaps
lies in the medium. ‘The εἰς may denote tendency to
perdition, namely, if the corruption be wilful, or

732 9 PETER, CHAP. III.

might have been avoided by proper means, or not
duly repented of. See note on 2 Pet. 2, 1.

17. ὑμεῖς otv—oryprypod. ἹΤΠρογινώσκοντες, “ pre~
viously warned of these perils and dangers.” Φυ-
λάσσειν is here used in a reciprocal sense, as often
in the Classical writers. See Wets. The sense is:
“be on your guard.” Τῶν ἀθεσμῶν πλάνῃ συνπαχ-
θέντες, “ hurried away by the error and deceit of
those lawless (scoffers),” mentioned supra, 2,77. In
cuvar. there isa metaphor taken (as Bens. says) from
a torrent. See Gal. 2,13. The ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου
στηριγμιοῦ is well opposed to the ἀστηρικτοι at ver. 16.
Σ τήριγ. denotes constancy in the faith as well as in
the purity of doctrine. On éxmimr. see Gal. 5, 4.
and the note there.

18. adgavere δὲ ἐν χάριτι---- Χριστοῦ. In av§. there
is an idiom (elsewhere found), by which with the
sense of the verb is conjoined a notion of endeavour ;
i. 6. ‘strive, endeavour, seek to grow in.” I would
render: “strive to grow in the grace and the know-
ledge of Jesus Christ,” or ‘‘in the favour of Jesus
Christ and the knowledge of his religion,’ which
would tend to the other. It is not necessary, with
Rosenm., to suppose an hendiadis.

On the doxology here addressed to Christ see
Bens., or Slade.

733

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF ST. JOHN.

CHAP. I.

The contents of ch. 1, 1—11. areas follows. The
doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ taught by the
Apostles, is of divine revelation. Christians are to
imitate the perfections of God; the light of holiness
is to be studiously followed, and the darkness of sin
avoided. On this condition only is the forgiveness
of sins, obtained by the death of Christ, to be ex-
pected. ‘The slaves of sin are the enemies of God.
Sinners are benefited by the atoning blood of Christ,
if they obey his precepts and follow his example.
Now this had already been inculcated by Christ
himself. (Knapp and Rosenm.)

1. ὁ ἦν am’ ἀρχῆς---λόγου τῆς ϑωῆς, “ That which
took place from the first promulgation of the Gospel,
which we (i.e. 1) have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have surveyed, and which
even our hands have handled, concerning (I say) the
Logos, and author of everlasting life.’ The sen-
tence is completed at ver. 3., ver. 2. being parenthe-
tical. The ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς Bp. Bull, Carpzov, and
others, understand of the beginning of the world;
as 3, 8., taking the ¢ as neuter for masculine. But
this, though true in one sense, cannot (on account of
the context) be considered as ¢he truth here meant.
So Rosenm. observes, that from the context it is
plain the subject is the Λόγος τῆς ϑωῆς, whose history,
St. John affirms, was perfectly known to himself and
the other Apostles. ‘The ἀρχὴ is explained, by most
modern Commentators, of the entrance of Christ
upon his ministry, and the first promulgation of the

784 1 JOHN, CHAP, I.

Gospel. See Rosenm., Mackn., Benson, and Whit-
by, which last Commentator adduces as examples of
this sense of am ἀρχῆς, Joh. 15, 27. Acts 1, 21.
1 Joh. 2,7 & 24. 3,10, 2 Joh. 5. Εἶναι is here, as
often, used of action. The expressions ἀκηκόαμεν,
ἑωράκαμεν, &c. constitute a form of protestation usual
in cases of seeming improbability. There is, too, a
climax. See Slade. The ἐθεασάμεθα is a stronger
term than ἑωράκαμεν, and answers to our survey,
inspect, implying accurate knowledge. The ai χεῖρες
a ἐψηλάφησαν refers to what is recorded at Joh.

27. See Doddr. Mackn. thinks it may also
ae to the other opportunities the disciples had of
handling their master, and knowing that he had a
real body. The plural ἡμῶν 18, ‘by most recent
Commentators, supposed to be put (after the manner
of the sacred writers, especially St. Paul) for the
singular. But it may be intended to include the
other Apostles. It is observed, by Rosenm., that
St. John here appeals to the testimony of the senses,
because of false teachers, who had neither seen nor
heard Christ ; and he then briefly repeats what he
had more fully said in the Preface to his Gospel,
1, 1—14., meaning (as it seems) to show what fol-
lowed from the accounts contained in the Gospel
both for doctrine, and practice.

1. τοῦ λόγου τῆς ϑωῆς. Thus at Joh. 1. Christ is
called both the 6 λόγος, and 7 gw. Slade explains:
« Jesus Christ, the author and principle of life.”
And so Hardy: “ qui est essentialiter ipsa vita, et
causaliter fons et auctor vite.”

2. καὶ ἡ ϑωὴ ἐφανερώθη. These words are, in the
best editions, thrown to ver. 2., with which the pre-
sent verse is closely connected, forming part of the
parenthesis of which it consists. The sense is:
« For Jesus Christ, the author of life and salvation,
was manifested,” namely, ἐν σαρκὶ ; as at 1 ‘Tim.
3,16. Kai (like the Heb. 4) is for γὰρ, as not un-
frequently i in the simple diction.

2. τὴν Sony τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἣν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα,

1 JOHN, CHAP. I. 135

‘* We (I say) having seen him, do bear testimony to,
and announce to you the (author of) eternal salva-
tion, who was with the Father, but has been mani-
fested to us.”” On the sublime sense of ἣν πρὸς τὸν
πατέρα. see Joh. 1, 1 ἃ 2. and the note. Both pas-
sages supply an irrefragable proof of the pre-exist-
ence of Jesus Christ.

3. ὃ ἑωράκαμεν. There is here (as Erasm., Beza,
Zeger, and Benson observe) a resumption of what
was before said; q.d. ‘* That (I repeat) which we
have seen and heard.” Rosenm. recognizes a προ-
θεραπεία ; q.d. ‘ wonderful, nay, incredible it may
seem that the Son of God assumed the human nature!
but no other than what we know, and what we have
seen, declare we unto you.” The next words show
the purpose of the thus announcing it, namely, “that
ye also may have communion with us, and partici-
pate in the benefits which we enjoy from this reli-
gion.” Kal ἡ κοινωνία δὲ---- Χριστοῦ, ‘* Now our com-
munion is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
Christ.” The δὲ is variously rendered ; and by some
it is thought pleonastic ; but I prefer, with Rosenm.,
the sense gam vero, now. ‘The purpose of the sen-
tence is (as Est. observes) to show the dignity of
this communion. On the nature of the connection,
the reader may consult Morus ap. Rosenm.

4. καὶ ταῦτα. γράφομεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμών ἢ πε-
πληρωμένη, “ These things write we unto you, that
your joy may be complete and full, by attaining the
end of your hopes, even everlasting life.” Others
for ὑμῶν read ἡμών. But the common reading is de-
fended by Joh. 3, 29. and 2 Joh. 11. See Carpzov.

5. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ éerayyeria—vpiv. There are
few points on which Critics are so agreed as that for
ἐπαγγελία we should read ἡ ἀγγελία, with many ex-
cellent MSS., Versions, and Fathers. “ For (say
they) the context requires, not promise, but message
and declaration.” Andsothe E. V. This, indeed,
is very true; but ἐπαγγελία has sometimes that
sense; asin 2 Tim. 1, 1. and Polyb. 24, 10, 8.

736 1 JOHN, CHAP. I.

Yet as ἀγγελία frequently occurs in St. John, it
seems to deserve the preference. Rosenm. renders
it doctrine. But this is too arbitrary. If we unite
the senses of declaration, precept, and message, we
shall (I think) attain the full sense. The idea mes-
sage is required by the avayy.

5. ὅτι ὃ Θεὸς dws ἐστι---οὐδεμία. It is well ob-
served, by Carpzov, that the phrases ἐν αὐτῴ εἶναι
Or μένειν ἐν τῇ κοινωνίᾳ εἶναι μετὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, also ἐκ
τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι, and finally εἶναι τὸ τέκνον τοῦ Θεοῦ
and ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας. all these St. John had heard
from Jesus himself, as well as many other recon-
dite phrases which he has adduced in his Gospel.
With respect to the das, this is ἃ symbol of what is
most pure and lovely, and, as the best Commenta-
tors are agreed, denotes the wisdom, holiness, truth,
purity, and other attributes of the Supreme Being.
By σκοτία is, on the contrary, meant moral imperfec-
tion ; for darkness is a symbol of ignorance, vice,
misery, &c. In the application of this to practical
use, it may be well to bear in mind the observation
of Rosenm.: “ Totus locus agit de hominum simili-
tudine cum Deo, ea parte, ut et homines fugiant
Vitia et sint sancti. Non excluditur tamen veri et
boni cognatio.”

6. ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμιεν, ‘live in ignorance
and vice.” Οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀληθείαν Carpzov well
renders: ‘‘ non exercemus veritatem, non agimus
sincere et integre;” as Joh. 3, 21., where see the
note.

7. ἐὰν δὲ---,Ωδτωτὶ, This verse is the exact counter-
part of the last ; and περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ Φωτὶ is the con-
trary to περιπατεῖν ἐν τῷ σκότει. “Qs αὐτὸς ἐστιν ἐν τῷ
Φωτὶ, ““ and strive to imitate his perfections.” Ka-
νωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, “ we hold common fel-
lowship,”’ viz. by mutual love, having the idem velle
and the idem nolle, &c. Kai τὸ αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
--Δμαρτίας, Then the blood of Christ cleanseth us
from all former sin.” By αἷμα is meant the sacrifice
of the death of Christ ; as Heb. 9,18. The efficacy

1 JOHN, CHAP. I. 737

of atonement, however, is conditional; and the sins
here meant must be sins of infirmity and frailty,
heartily repented of and entirely forsaken. Carpzov
supplies εὐπεριστάτου, ““ which yet besets us;’’ refer-
ring to Heb. 12, 1. But this is too arbitrary a sub-
audition.

8, 9. ἐὰν εἵπωμεν ὅτι---ἷμῖν. By ἁμαρτία is meant
sin in any way, whether through ignorance, or
knowingly and habitually. Now those are said to
deny that they have sinned, who deny that they have
incurred blame by sin, and so either excuse or palliate
what they have done, and dissemble the fault. So
at Jer. 2, 25. the phrases non peccare, and nullam
commereri poenam are interchanged. Here, then,
are designated persons who neither grieve at the
sins committed by them, nor ask pardon for them,
nor intend amendment of life. ‘Eavrots πλανώμεν,
καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν, “* we impose upon (and
injure) ourselves; and truth and religion have no
place in our hearts.” (Rosenm.)

Πιστὸς, veracious, true to his promises. Δίκαιος,
merciful, good. Rosenm. paraphrases: ‘“ Si confi-
teamur peccata nostra, Deus pro sua veracitate et
benignitate nobis peccata remittit, omnemque cul-
pam tollit.”” See Benson ap. Slade.

10. Here is a repetition, in other words, of what
was said at ver. 8.; a manner of further enforcing
any important truth frequent with St. John. Ψεύστην
ποιοῦμεν αὐτὸν. This is well rendered, by Pisc.,
“‘ mendacitatis eum arguimus,” but still closer by
Grot., mendacem facere (as Job 24, 25.), aliquem
pro mendaci habere, to account him for a liar, or so
to act as if we did. And Grot. compares Heb. 6, 6.,
‘‘ crucify the Lord afresh.” The words following
are exegetical, and well explained, by Carpzov, ‘‘ we
do not believe and obey his doctrine,” literally, ‘ his
word has no place in our hearts,” namely, either for
belief, or (as consequent upon it) obedience. By
the ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant the revelation of God in

VOL. VIII. 3 B

738 1. JOHN, CHAP. I. II.

the Gospel; as Joh. 5, 88. 8, 37. Carpz. compares
James 1, 21. δέξασθαι τὸν ἐμῴφυτόν λόγον. See Mackn.
and Rosenm.

CHAP. II.

VERSE 1. ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν, “ These things am I
writing to you.”” For, as Rosenm. observes, it re-
gards as well what follows, as what precedes. “Iva μὴ
ἁμάρτητε, ‘to caution you against sin, by showing
you that all wilful and habitual sin is utterly incon-
sistent with Divine communion.” Kal ἐὰν ἁμάρτῃ,
** If, however, any do sin,” i. e. as Carpzov explains,
through frailty, ignorance, or precipitancy—he need
not despair of pardon, for in that case, ἄς. Παρά-
κλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. By rapaKa. is meant
an advocate, one who will plead our cause, a depre-
cator, and, in a general way, a helper. Of which
sense many examples are adduced by Loesner from
Philo; as 560 p., where Joseph. says to his brethren
μηδένος ἑτέρου δεῖσθε παρακλήτου. Of this forensic and
aulick term I have before treated. See the note on
Joh. 14. 10., and Elmsley on Eurip. Med. 155. “There
is nothing (Doddr. observes) that illustrates the mat-
ter more than the residence of some eminent persons
from distant provinces in the courts of great princes,
or states, whose business it was constantly to nego-
tiate with them the affairs of those whom they repre-
sented, to vindicate them from any unjust aspersions,
and to promote their interests to the utmost of their
power.” ‘* Now, asin common life (observes Ro-
senm.), any one who has found a friend to help him
forward, does therefore the more confidently look for
success ; so we, when filled with compunction for
sin, so much the more confidently trust for pardon,
in reliance on Jesus, who is the ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν
αμαρτΐων. —

Aixatov, sinless; as 1 Pet. 3,18. Heb. 7, 26.

2. καὶ αὐτὸς ἵλάσμος ᾽στι, Κο. The καὶ αὐτὸς ἐστι

1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 739

is for ὅς ἐστι; and ἱλασμὸς is for ἱλαστὴς ; by a me-
tonymy of the effect, i.e. (as Rosenm. explains)
sacrificium pro reatu; as Ez. 44, 27. Ps. 49,8. See
the excellent note of Whitby, or the extract in Slade.

By the ἡμῶν many recent Commentators under-
stand Christians in general ; and by ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου,
the whole human race, of course including Heathens.

. And (as observes Doddr.) ‘Christianity could surely
receive no prejudice by supposing that truly virtuous
Heathens may be accepted by God, in consideration
of the atonement which Christ has made.” This,
however, seems not to have been here had in view ;
for the Apostle (as many eminent Commentators,
antient and modern, suppose,) appears to be only
speaking of believers; by the ἡμῶν meaning the
Jewish people; and by the dao τοῦ κόσμου, all the
Gentiles who believe and embrace the truth. See
Pole’s Syn. and Bens. Wolf, indeed, and almost all
the Dutch Commentators take the ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου to
mean the whole human race; but then they under-
stand only such as may be Christians. See the notes
in D’Oyley and Mant.

3. καὶ ἐν τούτω γινώσκομεν---τηρώμεν, ““ And by this
we know (or may know) that we have a right know-
ledge of Him (i. e. Christ), if we keep his command-
ments.” The ἐγνώκαμεν some explain of real know-
ledge, not speculative and sterile, but practical and
useful. Others, observing ‘ verba notitia: sepe af-
fectum denotant,” explain it love; comparing the
Heb. yt and Joh. 10,14. (See Carpzov.) It is,
moreover, not agreed whether by αὐτὸν be meant
Christ, or God the Father. Those who adopt the
former interpretation urge that Christ was just be-
fore mentioned. But the same will hold good of the
Father ; and the latter is supported by ver. 5. It is
at ver. 6. (as Carpzov observes) that Christ, and faith
in him, is spoken of. Γινώσκειν αὐτὸν must then be
interpreted according to the person understood by
αὐτὸν. The term may, in a general way, import to

3B ἐν ale

740 1 JOHN, CHAP. Il.

have a right knowledge of his will, &c. In ver. 4.
there i isa Tepetition of the sentiment, supra, 1, 8.

5. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ---τετελείωται. By the λόγον is
meant (as Rosenm. observes) the preceptive part of
Christianity. ᾿Αληθώς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ τε-
τελείωται. The best Commentators, as Whitby,
Carpzov, and Rosenm., are agreed that the sense is:
“ In him, truly, a sincere love towards God is
evinced. In this sense rea. is used at 2 Cor. 12, 9.
‘* Now the precepts of Christ (annotates Rosenm.)
express the will of God. No one can more strongly
evince his love towards God than by wholly accom-
modating himself to his will. Bs

(5. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσμεν. The same
sentiment in other words: for (as Rosenm. observes)
to be in God, to have God, to be conjoined with God.
are all synonymous phrases, denoting that conjunc-
tion with God mentioned at 1, 3.

6. ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ---περιπατεῖν. On the phrase μένειν
ἐν Χριστῷ see ver. ὅ. By περιπατεῖν is here, as often,
meant life and habitual conduct. ‘The sentiment is,
that consistent disciples imitate their master. Odrws
is omitted in one MS., the Vulg., and some Latin
Fathers. But that may be accounted for from the
particle being, in Latin, superfluous. Here (Bens.
observes) the Apostle sums up all he had said at ver.
3. and 4, 5.

7, 8. ἀδελφοὶ, οὐκ ἐντολὴν----ἀργῆς, “ Brethren, I en-
join no new commandment upon you, but an old

commandment, which ye had trom the beginning.”
Such is (I ἘΠ ΣΤῊ the sense of the words: but < on what is
meant by the ἐντύόλὴν παλαίαν there is much diversity of opinion.
Some, as Hamm., Carpzov, and Rosenm., refer it to what was said
at ver, 6. on the imitating Christ, and abstaining from vice. And
Rosenm. thinks this is levelled against the false teachers, who disse-
minated new doctrines, and did not follow those of Christ, but pro-
pounded fancies of theirown. The ἐντολὴ he would take for the
complexus plurimus precepturum, the principal doctrines of Christia-
nity ; as 2 Pet. 2,11. 3,2. Heb. 7,18. 19,19. And he lays down
the foilowing as the general sense: “" Religionis doctrine, quas ego
yobis trado, de.necessitate peccata fugiendi et sancté vivendi, non
sunt novee, sed jam ab initio Evangelii omnibus cognite.” But in

1 JOHN, CHAP. Il. 741

this there is something strained and harsh. Mackn. proposesa new,
but most far-fetched interpretation, The most eminent Commen-
tators, from Bp. Bull to Benson and Bp. Horsley, refer the subject
matter of ver. 7, 8. to that of 9—11., nainely, that Christians should
love each other even as Christ had loved them. Now this was an
early injunction of Christ, and had been all along inculcated by the
Apostles and true teachers ; the contrary to which was a recent in-
novation of false ones. Jt was, indeed, as old as the Mosaic law ;
but, en the other hand (for that is the sense of πάλιν) certain con-
siderations entitled it to the appellation of new, both as regarded
Christ and themselves (6 ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν). See the
paraphrase of Benson and his note, and the excellent paraphrase of
Doddr., as also Bp. Horsley’s Sermon on Joh. 13, 34., or the extract
in Slade, and the notes of Bp. Hall and Abp. Secker ap. D’Oyley and
Mant.

The words ὅτε ἡ σκοτία rapayerat, καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη
φαίνει are obscure and variously interpreted. I would translate :
““ For the darkness is passing away, and the true light now shinetb.”’
The connection seems to be this: “ And your obligations to fulfil
such a command are proportionably greater, for the darkness is
more and more dispelled, and,” &c.

9. ὁ λέγων---ἄρτι. By ἀδελῷ. is meant fellow-crea-
ture. See Matt. 5, 44. ᾿Εν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστιν, “ is yet
in the darkness of ignorance, and has no true know-
ledge of religion.” In this ignorance sin also seems
implied. The ἕως ἄρτι refers to the light having
shone on the world. It is truly remarked, by Ro-
senm., that to many this might seem a new doctrine ;
and the misanthropic spirit of the Jews is well known.

10, 11. ἐν to φωτὶ μένει, καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ
ἐστιν. Μένει seems to be for ἐμμένει ; and it isa sort
of vox pregnans, well explained by Rosenm.: “ eo
ipso declarat et ostendit se constantem esse,” &c.
By φωτὶ is meant the true religion, and the duties it
enjoins. It isthen added: καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ otk
ἐστιν, which words are variously explained. Benson
takes the αὐτῷ to refer to φωτὶ; and he renders :
** there is no danger of his stumbling in that.” This
he supports with his usual ingenuity: but it is not
without reason that almost every other Commentator
takes it to refer to the person. Rosenm. paraphrases
thus: “in eo nullum obstaculum (virtutis) est; ni-
hil est quod eum impediat, quo minus nempe in
eognitione veri et virtutis studio crescere possit.’?

742 1 JOHN, CHAP. IL.

Our affections and lusts (he adds) lay stumbling-
blocks for our virtue; whereas in his heart who has
true Christion love, the baleful passions of envy,
hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, find no
place.

The words of the antithetical clause ὁ δὲ μισὼν---
αὐτοῦ, Rosenm. rightly remarks, are not to be rigor-
ously interpreted. His exposition, however, is some-
what vague. The sense (I conceive) is: ‘* Such a
man shows that he is involved in the grossest igno-
rance of true religion, its essence, and duties; and
as far as he is a professor of Christianity, and aims at
salvation, he entirely wanders both in conception
and action from the object he seeks; and, like the
blind Sodomites, vainly wearies himself to find the
door of salvation.”

12. With the portion consisting of this and the three following
yerses Commentators have been not a little perplexed ; and most of
them stumble at what they please to call the fautology, on account
of which much ambiguity is supposed to exist in several of the ex-
pressions. Many, Mr. Slade says, with reason, ‘‘ adopt the conjecture
of Doddr., and suppose, from the great similarity of expressions, that
some were corrections of others ; and that, by mistake, all of them,
original as well as corrected, were received into the text.” And he
adds, that there does appear, altogether, from MSS. and Versions,
“no small uncertainty respecting the true reading. A consistent in-
terpretation (he thinks) of the passage might be obtained, by omit-
ting the two first clauses of ver. 13. as far as τὸν πονηρὸν; and by
beginning it with ἔγραψα ὑμῖν παίδια, instead of γράφω, which
reading is supported by some of the best authorities, and it will
agree with what follows.” He observes, too, that this construction
is supported by the context. (See more in his note.) But to all
this I must demur. Neither conjectures nor transpositions (espe-
cially when, asin the present case, they are unsupported by autho-
rity,) have, in the course of this work, received much attention from
me, nor do they seem entitled to it. And as to tautology, the no-
tions of the antients and the moderns differ exceedingly on this point,
the latter of whom have a fastidiousness thereon quite unknown to
the former. Now repetitions abound in the Apostle, and what are
called tautologies are not rare. But these ({ conceive) are seldum
imtroduced, except for the purpose of enforcing some precept, &c. ;
and such seems to be the case here, as I shall show in the annota-
tions, in the course of which the ambiguities and difficulties com-
plained of by Slade will (I trust) be removed. And, first, much
obscurity is removed from the passage by the view of the whole
traced out by Carpzov, whom see in loco, He takes the primary pro~

1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 743

position and thesis to be contained in ver. 15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσ-
μον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ, which he prints in capitals, Rosenm., (who
entirely adopts his view,) observes, that certainly “the repeated verbs
γράψω, ἔγραψα, and also the repeated nouns rexvia, πατέρες, and
νεανίσκοι, are the same impelling causes insisted on anew. It is
plain, then, that the sentence is continued, and no full stop must be
placed, except after κόσμῳ."

Τεκνέα. ‘The best Commentators are pretty much agreed that
this is a general address, comprising all Christians, as at ver. 1.»
and frequently elsewhere in St. John. (See Beza and Wolf.) The
words dre ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ are sup-
posed, by Rosenm., to contain a reason why Christians ought not
to prefer the world (ver. 15.) ; namely, since the forgiveness of sins
should always be an incentive to the striving after holiness, and es-
pecially the cultivation of mutual love.

13. γράφω ὑμῖν; πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, “1 write to
you, fathers, for ye know him that is from the beginning.’ ΜΓ,
Slade (rightly I think) supposes that the use of the word rekcvia
suggested to the Apostle the idea of addressing himself to the three
gradations of Christians denominated by children, young men, and
fathers. And he cites Schol. ap. Matth. Here, however, we are en-
countered with diversity of opinions. Many Commentators suppose
that this is meant for a distribution of Christians into the different
degrees of spiritual progress. But there is hardly any thing to coun-
tenance the notion. There seems scarcely more than an allu-
sion to the different degrees of proficiency which might be presumed
in those different ages ; and Rosenm. thinks these are introduced
oratorié: adding: ‘ Solent nempe qui ad alios verba faciunt spe
singulorum ordinum, singularumque actatum homines alloqui, non
quod heec vel illa admonitio ad unius conditionis homines pertineat,
sed ut declarent, se omnibus ac singulisaliquid dicere posse.” In this,
however, there is something rather too artificial to suit the plainness
and simplicity of the Apostle’s style. On the distribution of the
three ages which constitute the term of life, he might have ob-
served, that such was not unusual to the antients. So Thucyd. 6;
18. (1.2, 354, 6. Bekker.) καὶ νομίσατε νεότητα μὲν καὶ γῆρας
ἄνεῦ ἀλλήλων μηδὲν δύνασθαι, ὁμοῦ δὲ τὸ τε φαῦλον καὶ τὸ μέσον καὶ
τὸ πάνυ ἀκριβὲς ἂν ξυγκραθὲν μαλιστ᾽ ἂν ἱσχύειν. 7 Ἐ50ῃγ]. Sept.
Theb. 10. Ὑμᾶς δὲ χρὴ νῦν, καὶ τὸν ἐλλείποντ᾽ ἔτι Ἥβης ἀκμαίας,
καὶ τὸν ἐξηβον χρόνῳ, Βλαστημὸν ἀλδαένοντα σώματος πολὺν, Ὥραν
τ᾽ ἐχονθ᾽ ἕκαστον" & 660. ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτε νιν φυγόντα μητρόθεν σκότον,
Our ἐν τροφαῖσιν, οὔτ᾽ ἐφηβήσαντά πω, Οὕτ᾽ ἐν γενείου ξυλλογῇ τρι-
χώματος, to omit many other passages which I shall adduce on the
passage of Thucydides.

The words ὅτε ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς are very remarkable: for
the best Commentators are agreed that the expression cannot mean
God, but Jesus Christ (since, as Rosenm. observes, He is in this por-
tion plainly distinguished from Him), and denotes his eternal being
with God the Father. Rosenm. aptly compares Joh, 1, 1. ἐν
apxn ἦν ὁ λόγος, Tadd Theophyl. Sim. 115 c, ἐπετίμησε yap rots
ἐθνεσιν ὁ ὧν am ἀρχῆς. Ὁ

744 1 JOHN, CHAP. II,

. The application is obvious: that they will not prefer to this eternal
Being things temporal and speedily to perish, ver.17. See Rosenm,

The νεανισκοὶ are persons in the flower of life. And the νενική-
κατε τὸν πονηρόν alludes to those fiery temptations of Satan (‘< darts
tempered in hell’), or carnal temptations, which he levels particu-
larly. against such. For as the knowledge} of Christ is presumed
to be most in the aged, so carnal temptation, and, as it is to be
hoped, effectual resistance thereto, is to be expected from those
in the flower of age.

By the παιδέα are evidently meant the youths, or striplings. See
Benson.

14. ἐγραψα ὑμῖν---ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. The repetition has peculiar energy :
and Rosenm. well translates: ‘‘ Tenete, quaso, senes, quod scrip-
serim, vos cognovisse,”” &c. And he remarks, that they are enjoined
to bear in mind by what means they have arrived at that happy state,
and to always strive after further degrees of perfection.

"Ore ἱσχυροί ἐστε---πονηρόυ. There is no need to resort to the
metathesis here supposed by Rosenm. ‘The words may be rendered :
““ For you (I presume) are strong (in the Lord), and the word and
revelation of God abideth in you, and (1 trust that) you have exerted
your strength and conquered the evil one.’

15. μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον, μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. Now comes
the weighty admonition so long suspended on the construction.
Here the Apostle cautions Christians against the love of this world,
and (as Bens. observes) enforces the caution with three arguments.
Ist. The love of God and the love of the world are inconsistent.
2dly. This world will soon pass away. S3dly. The rewards of sincere
piety will be eternal.

The κόσμον is, by most Commentators, explained the evil part of
the.world. (See Pole.) But I rather apprehend that the limitation
(for such must be supposed) is to be made at the word ἀγαπᾶτε, and
that this signifies this excessive degree of attachment which it is
never safe to devote even to the most legitimate objects of regard,
and the most important business of the world, otherwise it will
clash with the love towards God, (with which Price. compares the
religio patris,) and eventually destroy it. The above view (I find) is
supported by Bens. and Doddr. See the excellent note of the former,

16. ὅτι πάν τὸ ἐν κόσμῳ---ἐστι. ‘These words con-
tain the reason; and the Apostle here contemplates
the case when the affections (as it too often happens)
are absorbed and diverted from their proper object,
not by the legitimate and laudable objects of the
~ world, but such as are altogether carnal and at va-

riance with our high calling in Christ Jesus.

It is evident from the words following that πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ
must denote ‘‘ whatever disposition of mind is (centered) in the
world,” which implies an excessive attachment to it. Of this the
Apostle gives three examples ; the ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς, the ἐπιθυ-

ia τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν, and the ἀλαξονεία τοῦ βίου, which are supposed

1 JOHN, CHAP. II. 745

to be meant for the three different stages of life above mentioned ;
and it is generally thought that young men are cautioned against
the lusts of the flesh, old men against covelousness, and children
against the pride of life. Bens. however, supposes that the youth
were cautioned against indulging the lusts of the flesh, young men
or middle-aged persons against the pride of life or ambition, and
old men against covetousness. And in Jike manner Wolf and Doddr.
explain the ἀλαξονεία. Yet in these criticisms there is something
precarious ; and any such application of the three terms seems too
formal for the simplicity of the Apostle’s style. I rather imagine
that a caution is here intended against the most formidable temp-
tations that beset persons of every age. The ἐπιθυμία evidently
signifies sensual excess of every kind. The ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν
is by some applied to lasciviousness ; as Matt. 5, 28. 2 Pet. 1, 14.
where see the notes. And this I can myself confirm from Philostr,
V. Ap. 1, 42. τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν, ὅπερ εἰσάγονται διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν.
6,11. βρώσεως τε καθαρῷ, ἱμέρου τε ὃς φοιτᾷ δι’ ὀμμάτων. Hesch. ΠῚ.
Ρ. 53 ἡ ἐπιθυμέα ἡ διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἐρχεται. AEschyl. Agam. 718.
seqq. μαλθακὸν ὀμμάτων βέλος Δηξίιθυμον ἔρωτος ἄνθος Παρακλίνουσ᾽.
Eurip. Hippol. 527. Monk. Ἔρως, Ἔρως, ὁ κατ᾽ ὀμμάτων Στάξεις
πάθον, &c. Others interpret it of covetousness ; which may be plau-
sibly maintained (see the Jearned note of Carp.) ; but it is best to
take the expression in its most extensive sense, to denote a desire
for the gay vanities, the external gaudes (as they are called by our
old writers, ) of this world. This interpretation is confirmed by Ezek.
94-95% λαμβάνω τὴν ἔπαρσιν τῆς καυχήσεως αὐτῶν, τὰ ἐπιθυμήματα
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν. As to the ἀλαξονεία τοῦ βίου, it is chiefly exegetical
of the preceding ; or may have, as Rosenm. thinks, especial allu-
sion to the ostentatious vanities of dress, and (he might have added)
all such other kinds of ostentation as the rich delight in. It is not
ill rendered by Tindale the pryde of goodes. It is best expressed by our
old word braveries, i. e. the ostentations, pomps, and splendours of
this world.

Now these, the Apostle adds, are not ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, i. 6. (as Ro-
senm. explains) are not agreeable to the will of the Father; and (as
Mr. Slade observes) he shows us, that though God, as our Creator,
is the author of our natural appetites, the abuse of them “ is of the
world,”

17. καὶ 6 κόσμος παράγεται, Kal ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ.
Hi pereunt, et perit id, quo delectantur, morte
finem imponente omnibus mundanis desideriis. Ca-
duca omnia, et citO transeuntia. (Rosenm.) The
παράγεται seems to denote the gradual perishing ofall
these things, which, as it were, fade from our eyes. I
would compare 1 Cor. 7, 31. παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα
τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, Where see the note. Ὁ δὲ ποιών τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένει εἰς τὸν aiwva. By μένει εἰς τὴν
αἰώνα is (I conceive) not meant, as Rosenm. explains,

74.6 1 JOHN, CHAP. Il.

‘* he shall never cease to practise virtue, and find its
reward,” but simply, he shall have an eternity of life
and happiness; the objects of his love and attach-
ment will continue for ever, and will not, as in the
case of the sensual and worldly minded, leave him
even before he leaves them.”

18. Irom hence to ver. 28. the Apostle cautions
the Christians against those deceivers who then ap-
peared in great numbers: and points out to them
the many advantages which they kad for knowing
the truth; and the many obligations which they
were under to adhere to it, and to practise accord-
ingly. (Bens.)

18. ἐσχάτη dpa ἐστίν. On the sense of this expres-
sion Commentators are by no means agreed. Ro-
senm. enumerates five principal various interpreta-
tions. 1. “the last age of the world. But this can-
not be admitted, since the Apostle is speaking of
what is shortly to happen. 2. “ The time near unto
the destruction of Jerusalem.” But neither can
that be intended, if, as some say, the Epistle was
written in the name of Domitian. 3. ““ Perilous and
evil times.” 4. ‘The future or coming period,”
(from the Hebr. =n NNN), alluding to some
prophecy then well known. Knapp thinks the Apos-
tle has reference to the predictions of Christ respect-
ing some future false prophets (i. 6. teachers feign-
ing divine inspiration), Matt. 7, 15. 24, 11 and 24.
Mark 18, 22 and 23. “ Now (continues he) the per-
versity of many teachers in this age did seem to
point at the fulfilment of the predictions. In the
present evils the Apostle saw a prelude to future
and more serious ones, although of the exact time
when these should happen he knew not. See Acts
26, 29 and 30. 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim. 3, 1 sey. 4, 5.
2 Thess. 2, 3—12. 2 Pet. 3, 20. Jude 17 and 18.”
A highly ingenious, but (I think) somewhat too ar-
tificial an interpretation. As to the fourth, it has
very little to recommend it. The third, which is
supported by Schoettg., Wolf, and Rosenm., seems
to deserve the preference.

een ...

1: JOHN, CHAP. If. 747

18. καθὼς ἠκούσατε ὅτι ὁ ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται---ὥρα
ἐστίν. On the subject of the ἀντίχριστος there is as
little agreement of opinion as on the ἐσχάτη ὥρα.
(See Pole’s Syn. and Wolf.) It is observed by Ro-
senm. and Slade that the ἀντι. may signify in the
place of, or in opposition to. And some suppose that
the Apostle means the impostors who (as we find
from Josephus), after the destruction of Jerusalem,
rose up, and pretended to be the Messiah. But the
points of similarity are fewer than those of dissimi-
larity. The latter sense, therefore, of ἀντι. must be
adopted: and the best founded opinion seems to be
that of most early Commentators, and recently Ben-
son, Doddr., Rosenm., &c., that the Apostle means
false teachers, whose life and doctrine were in oppo-
sition to Christ and his religion; and the term is
supposed to be synonymous with the ὁ ἀντικείμενος of
St. Paul at 2 Thess. 2, 4. From the description St,
John gives of these men further on, and at 4, 3. and
2 Eph. 7., it appears that they were not (as Whitby
supposes) unbelieving Jews, persons who pretended
to be Christians, and yet maintained that Jesus was
not the Messiah; or, if the Messiah, in some pecu-
liar sense of their own. Others say they were apos-
tates. Andall the classes of early heretics are fixed
upon by some one or other of the Commentators,
(See Carpz.) Upon the whole, no certainty can be
attained, for want of more information on the reli-
gious state of those times. See Bp. Bull’s Judicium
Ecclesiz, p. 33, 38. and Vitring. Obss. Sacr. L. 5.
c. 12.

19. ἐξ ἡμών ἐξῆλθον.----μιῶν. The antithesis is very
pointed, but can scarcely be expressed in any other
language. The é&72ov is perhaps a vox preeenans.
And the sense seems to be this: “ They went forth
from us, and therefore had arisen from us; but they
were never really of us, not Christians in heart, but
who, after having become such, imbibed false no
tions, and threw the society into confusion.”

19. εἰ γὰρ---μεθ ἡμών. The Apostle proves their

748 1 JOHN, CHAP. II.

former falseness from their subsequent apostacy. In
the next words ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα Φανερωθώσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσι πάντες
ἐξ ἡμῶν there is an ellipsis, which some supply by,
this was permitted by God. But that is too arbitrary
a subaudition. It is plain that ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθον must
be supplied from the former part of the verse (and
so the Syr. and E. V.); though the former may be
included in a secondary sense.

The words ὅτι οὐκ ἐισι πάντες ἐξ ἡμῶν admit of two
renderings. E. V. &c. ‘“ that they were not all of
us.” But that cannot be the sense. They must
rather (by a sort of Hebraism, as v. 21. πᾶν ψεῦδος ---
ἐστι) be for drs πάντες εἶσι οὐκ ἐξ ἡμών, “ that they
were not any of them of us. Elio: for ἦσαν, as often.
Rosenm. assigns the sense, ‘‘ that not all those who
are in our societies are Christians at heart.” But
this the Φανερωθῶσιν will not permit; and at ὅτι οὐκ---
there would be a very harsh ellipsis.

20. καὶ ὑμεῖς χρίσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου, “ ye are
anointed,” &c. Now anointing, according to Ori-
ental manners, is supposed to accompany inaugura-
tion to any office of dignity. This anointing may be
considered as alluding to our Christian inauguration
by the sacraments and the preaching of the word.
From a comparison of ver. 24 and 27. it appears that
this unction or anointing denotes the first instruction
in the Christian religion, the fruit of which is a
knowledge of the truth (ver. 20, 21 and 27). Since,
then, the thing is sufficiently shown by the writer
himself, we must not attend to those who maintain a
different sort of unction. (Rosenm.) ‘There may,
however, be an allusion to the imparting of the yapic-
para of the Holy Spirit, then so frequent. See the
note on 2 Cor. 1, 22. and Mackn. in loco. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ
ἁγίου may either mean God, or Jesus Christ ; though
the /atter interpretation is the more probable. See
Beza, Grot., Whitby, Wells, Doddr., and Mackn., or
the extracts in Slade. Καὶ οἴδατε πάντα. The ravra
must (as Grot. observes) be restricted by the subject
matter (as in 1 Cor. 9, 22. 15, 27.), and denote all

1 JOHN, CHAP. 11. 749

things necessary to salvation, and to avoid the delu-
sions of those impostors, viz. (as Rosenm. observes)
that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world (Joh.
18, 36.), that we are to render unto Cesar the things
that are Cesar’s, &c. (Matt. 22, 21.), that the jus
gladii is not to be seized, by taking the law into our
own hands.

21. οὐκ typava—oldare αὐτὴν. Rosenm. takes the
οὐκ ἔγραψα for, “non ea mihi scribendi fuit causa.”
But this is too harsh a subaudition. It is more na-
tural, with Carpz., to take ὅτι in the sense quasi, i. 6.
ἢ» (supposing) that.” And the words ἀλλ᾽ éri—éors
require a similar subaudition. Thus: “ but as sup-
posing, or trusting, that ye knowit.” For, as Bens.
observes, even persons in possession of knowledge,
nay, endowed with the Spiritual gifts, stood in need
of repeated cautions and admonitions. \ He might
have compared a kindred passage of 2 Pet. 1, 22.
Διὸ οὐκ ἀμελήσω ὑμᾶς ἀεὶ ὑπομιμνήσκειν περὶ τούτων, καί-
περ εἰδότας καὶ ἐστηριγμιένους ἐν τῇ παρουση ἀληθείᾳ.

Q1. ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος. Here is ἃ common Hebraism,
by which πᾶν with an οὐκ following stands for a ne-
gatio universalis, The sense is well expressed by
Benson thus: “ and are sensible that no false doc-
trine proceeds from the truth, or is consistent with
it.” By the truth is meant the pure Gospel ; and by
the ψεῦδος, the erroneous doctrines of the Anti-
christs.

22. τίς ἐστιν ὃ ψεύστης.-Χριστός ; This is.(as Ro-
senm. says) to be taken comparaté ; since there are
other kinds of impostors. ‘* Who is an impostor, if
he be not ?” i. e. who is so great an impostor as he
who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? ᾿Αρνεῖσθαι
and many such verbs take a negative after them,
which, not being expressed in other languages, is
thought a pleonasm, but it tends, as in the case of
two negatives, to strengthen the negation.

22, οὗτός ἐστιν----οἷὸν. ‘Rosenm. observes, that ἀονεῖσ-
θαι here signifies to detract from the faith and autho-
rity of; as Acts 3,13 and 14. And it is truly re-

750 1 JOHN, CHAP. II.

marked by Whitby and Rosenm., that dgv. τὸν Πατέρα
does not signify to deny the existence of God, and
so be an Atheist, but (as Whitby says) to deny, 1.
the truth of his testimony, c. 5, 10. Joh. 3, 33.; 2.
the doctrine of the Father, or that doctrine which
proceedeth from him ; for “he whom God hath sent,
speaketh the words of God.” Joh. 3, 24. Whence
it is evident (continues Whitby) that he who denieth
the Son, cannot retain the true knowledge of the
Father, because he can be known only through the
Son. Joh. 1, 18. 4, 23 and 24. 8, 19 and 55. 14, 6
and 7. 16,3. Matt. 11, 27.” Or it may signify (as
Morus explains) to deny that the Father sent the
Son for the salvation of men, to deny the Father’s
benefits, as conferred on men by Jesus Christ.” So
also Rosenm. and Wets.

23. πᾶς 6 ἀρνούμενος τὸν ‘Tidy, οὐδὲ τὸν Πατέρα ἔχει,
ςς He who denieth honour to the Son, hath not the
Father in honour or in knowledge, receives not his
doctrine.” It is observed by Rosenm., that ἔχειν
Θεὸν, and κοινωνίαν ἔχειν μετὰ Θεοῦ, as also εἶναι ἐν Oca,
are in this Epistle interchanged, and denote all the
unity and relationship with God effected by religion.
See also Bens. The words 6 ὁμολογών---ἔχει, found
in many MSS., Versions, and Fathers, and received
by Griesb., Matt., Knapp, and Vater, have the ap-
pearance of being genuine; for they not only seem
to be required by the sense, but they savour of the
style of St. John; and their omission may better be
imputed to homeoteleuton than their addition to a
marginal scholium.

24, 25. ὑμεῖς olv—peverw. "An ἀρχῆς. “ from the
commencement of your evangelization.” Grot. re-
marks, that the construction is κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμιενον 5
as at ver. 27; for the Apostle begins as if to say:
“Ye then, what ye have heard from the beginning,
retain ;” but for the retain he puts, “ let it remain
in you.”

24, ἐὰν ἐν ὑμῖν μείνη ---μενεῖτε. Now, remaining in
implies favour, and the receiving the promises of

1 JOHN CHAP. II. δὲ

God by the Son. The promise of the Father, i. 6.
the thing promised by the Father, is then said to be
eternal life and happiness. ‘The accusative is put
for the nominative, like the well known urbem quem
statuo vestra est. See, however, Bens. or Slade.

26. ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμάς.
The περὶ some render on account of ; as Matt. 4, 6.
Most assign to it the sense concerning. If it be ren-
dered quod attinet ad, the former signification may
be included. Ilaavaivrwy may signify those who are
seducing them, which imports the endeavour, whe-
ther successful or not. See Bens., Wells, and Doddr.

Q7. καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐν ὑμῖν μέ-
νει. The καὶ ὑμεῖς is rightly taken by Rosenm. for ad
quod attinet ; the ὑμεῖς being put absolutely. On
χρίσμα see the note supra, ver. 20. The words καὶ
οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκη ὑμᾶς, however, are
somewhat obscure. ‘They seem to express that the
persons he is addressing stand in need of no admoni-
tion to maintain a virtuous course: and Carpz. re-
marks that the τις (according to the usage of the
Apostle) denotes himself. But the words cannot have
such a meaning ; otherwise why did the Apostle ad-
monish them. Either, therefore, the expressions
must be understood with restriction (as they are by
Grot.) to time, places, and circumstances (on which
see the excellent note of Doddr.), or import that
they had no need of information for the purpose of
distinguishing false teachers from true ones; for
many had the gift of discerning spirits. See 1 Cor.
12,10. and the note. (Consult Mackn. and Slade.)
Or, with Bens. and Rosenm., we may suppose the
τις to relate to any of those impostors ; or at διδάσκη
understand τι, 1. e. ‘any thing those impostors could
teach you.” But this is not so natural a mode of in-
terpretation.

27. GAN ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χάρισμια---μιενεῖτε ἐν ἀὐτῷ. Kal,
and so. Ψεῦδος is for ψευδὲς ; and (as Rosenm. ob-
serves) the same thing is said first affirmatively, and
then by denying the opposite. The peveire is by

752 : 1 JOHN, CHAP. II. III.

some considered as the future for the imperative.
But that comes in the next verse. It seems better,
with Grot., Bens., and Rosenm., to take it for a
future bene sperantis et ominantis ; ‘‘ ye will (I trust)
remain in him, and continue in his doctrine.”

28. καὶ viv, τεκνία, μένετε---παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ. ‘The
sense (I conceive) is this: ** And now, my children,
(to my hope and trust let me add my injunction,)
abide (I say) in him, that when he shall appear, we
(i. 6. not only ye, but myself,) may have confidence,
and not have cause to blush and be confounded at
his presence, when he cometh.” In the change of
persons we may observe great delicacy; for the re-
jection and disgrace of the disciple tends to the dis-
credit of the teacher. See 1 Thess. 2, 19 and QO.
Hebr. 13, 17., &c. The καὶ νῦν is (as Carpz. observes)
a formula used in exhortation deduced from _pre-
mises, and may be rendered proinde. See also Slade.
Αἰσχύνεσθαι ἀπὸ τινος is compared with the Hebrew
1 win. So we say to blush at. Now such blushing
implies rejection.

20, ἐὰν εἰδῆτε----γεγέννηται. With these words Bens.
makes a new section commence. Δίκαιος, virtuous.
Γινώσκετε may be taken either for an indicative or
imperative. Toei τὴν δικαιοσύνην (as usual in St.
John,) imports an habitual practice of virtue. Ἔξ
αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, ““15. his genuine son, is acknow-
ledged as such, and beloved.” In this sonship is im-
plied both a similarity with God, of feeling, thinking,
and acting, and the favour and benefits usually im-
parted by fathers to sons. On the expression see
more in Mackn., or Slade. The transition from
Christ to God is compared by Rosenm. with that at
ver. 3, 5, and 16. from God to Christ.

CHAP. III.

St. John represents it as the honour and privilege
of the disciples of Christ, that they are the sons of

1 JOHN, CHAP. II. . 753

God, and entitled to future happiness. But, withal,
he lets them know, that the way to prepare for that
future felicity is, by purity of heart and life; that
the practice of righteousness is the only sure proof
that we are born of God, and are true Christians ;
as vice is an unquestionable proof of a man’s belong-
ing to the wicked one. (Bens.)

Ver. 1. Were ποταπὴν ---κληθῶμεν. Nova excitatur
attentio ; sed coheret oratio cum superioribus. (Ro-
senm.) dere, reflect, consider. Ἰ]οταπὴν ἀγάπην,
“ what an amazing proof of love.” “Ive τέκνα Θεοῦ
κληθώμεν. The καὶ ἐσμεν added in many MSS. and
Versions is from the margin. ‘The Apostle has re-
ference to the name applied to Christians by Christ
himself, Matt. 5, 45. On the import of the term see
the note supra, 2, 29. It appears (Slade says) from
the preceding verse, that the Apostle alludes to
those who actually were the sons of God, ‘‘ by doing
righteousness.”

1. διὰ rovro—aurcv. Benson observes, that the
two members of this argument are transposed ;— Be-
cause the world knew him not, therefore it knows not
us. Or the truth is first laid down, and then the
reason of it assigned. He adds that, when it is said
the world knew them not, it is meant, did not fully
comprehend what glory and felicity was implied in
being sons of God, and heirs of the eternal inherit-
ance, and this for the same reason, that they knew
not God (or Christ) and his doctrine, being blind in
heavenly things.”

2. vov τέκνα Θεοῦ ἐσμεν---ἐστι. Here we have a so-
lemn repetition of the same assertion, another truth
being engrafted upon it with respect to our dignity
and glory in the future world. I would paraphrase
thus: ‘‘ (As to our present state) now (I repeat) we
are already sons of God, and (as to our future one) it
does not yet appear what we shall be. However, this
we do know, that when he shall appear we shall be
like unto him, for we shall see him as he is.” On the
τέκνα see the note on 2, 29. Οὕπω ἐφανερώθη, “ it

VOL. VIII. tow

754 1 JOHN, CHAP. III.

does not yet appear even to true Christians (much
less to the profane world; they cannot form any ac-
curate conceptions).” Ti ἐσόμεθα, “ in what state or
situation we shall be placed, and what called, what
dignity,” ὅς. ; for τι is a very extensive term, and is
(as Rosenm. observes) applied to all qualities. ‘The
οἴδαμεν Carpz. and Rosenm. treat as an expression
frequent in St. John, equivalent to sane, certissime.
And they might have compared the οἶδα ὅτι, and εὖ
οἶδ᾽ ὅτι of Thucyd. and the Attics. But this seems a
needless refinement. At ἐὰν φανερωθῇ the best
Critics, as Grot., Carpz., and Rosenm. take ἐὰν for
ὅταν. Butit is more correct to say that ὅτι ἐὰν is for
ὅταν. See several examples in Benson, and Whitby.
It remains, however, matter of enquiry, what is the
nominative to φανερωθῇ. Perhaps Θεὸς, or rather, as
Beza, Vorst., Menoch., Gomar, and most Commen-
tators suppose, Χριστὸς, ‘To this, however, objec-
tions are made by Bens. Yet ἐφανερώθη occurs in
this very sense at ver. 5. He and Tindall, Grot.,
Carpz., Rosenm., and Jaspis think that τι ἐσόμεθα
must be repeated, ‘“ what shall be our then state and
dignity,” (which, however, as Slade observes, comes
to the same thing,) i. 6. (explains Rosenm.) not ;in
goodness only, but in eternity and blessedness ; no
longer liable to sin and death, our knowledge and
love of virtue cousummate.

2, ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν kabws ἐστι, 1. 6. NOt ἐν αἰνίγμα-
τι, but πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, as says St. Paul,
1 Cor., 13, 12.3 and hence will arise felicity the
most complete. ‘The Commentators enlarge much
further: but they seem to forget the words just
before, οὕπω ἐφανερώθη τι ἐσόμεθα, which, after all
human speculations have been carried the furthest,
will remain true.

The ὅτι signifies stguidem, and the ὅτι ὄψομεθα, is
meant to show why we shall be like unto him.

3. Kal πᾶς ὃ ἔχων---ἁγνός ἐστι. Try ἐλπίδα, i. 6.
this hope of participation in felicity with God and
Christ, and of greater resemblance to their holiness.

1 JOHN, CHAP. III. + MSS

᾿Αγνίξει. This is one of those verbs which imply
endeavour, i. e. ““ strives to purify himself.” Kadds
is by the best Commentators interpreted not of purity,
but samilitude (as Matt. 5, 48.), i. 6. so as to become
pure in like manner, though not in the same degree,
as He is pure and holy. See the excellent notes of
Beza and Whitby.

4. πᾶς ὃ ποιών τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν mores.
The best Commentators are agreed that by ποιεῖν
ἁμαρτίαν is meant habitual, wilful, and flagitious sin,
moral contamination, in opposition to the purity just
before mentioned. The τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ is equiva-
lent to ἀνομεῖ, 1. 6. νόμον παραβαίνει, scil. rod Θεοῦ.
And so Rosenm. explains. Carpz., however, under-
stands, by the phrase ποιεῖν ἀνομίαν, “ contaminate
the doctrines and laws of Christ, and violate his
religion.” See the paraphrase of Slade.

5. καὶ oldare—ev αὐτῷ οὐκ ἐστι. The Apostle now
adduces other reasons why we are to live holily;
Ist., Because Christ appeared on the earth for the
very purpose of suppressing sin, that men should no
longer commit it. (Rosenm.) But, considering
how frequent in Scripture is the expression αἴρειν
ἁμαρτίαν, always denoting the procuring pardon, by
taking away the guilt of sin, and thus atoning for it,
I cannot but adopt that sense here; and so Bens.,
who has an excellent note. Yet the context and
course of reasoning seems to require the other,
namely, the being freed from the dominion and
power of sin (Rom. 6, 6.); a sense supported by
Hamm., Whitby, Doddr., Mackn., Rosenm., and
others. Perhaps, therefore, it may be best to unite
both interpretations ; 1. 6. Jesus Christ appeared on
earth, to abolish the tyranny of sin, and suppress all
deliberate sin, not merely by purity of doctrine, and
holiness of life (as Rosenm. supposes) but by making
an atonement for all involuntary and not deliberate,
or at least repented of and forsaken sin.

6. πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων, οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει. It is plain
that ἁμαρτάνειν here, as throughout this Epistle,

θοῷ

756 1 JOHN, CHAP. III.

denotes habitual or deliberate sin. See Doddr.
Ἑωρακεν. This term, like the Hebr. 8 (from
whence it is derived), here signifies to know: an
idiom found in modern languages, by which corpo-
real perception stands for mental. The ἔγνωκεν
seems added exegetically, or to strengthen the
sentence, and need not be explained (with Rosenm.)
venerates and loves. The other pnrases of the verse
have been before explained. See Bens.

7. τεκνία, μηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑμᾶς. ‘There is here (by
a phrase found also at Eph. 5, 6., 2 Thess., 2, 3. See
also 1 Cor., 3, 18.) an allusion to false teachers, who
then (as now) devised other ways of being righteous
than that appointed by God; though even without
such, the heart of every man is too apt to deceive
him, by insinuating that a profession of the Christian
faith, and a love of virtue, will stand in the place of
the performance of theone, and the practice of the
other.

The ποιῶν must, as before, be understood of habi-
tual virtue in the main course of our lives. For
so (as Doddr. observes) it is necessary to interpret
the phrase, in order to avoid an indulgence as extra-
vagant as the severity we have just before opposed.
Bens. (after Le Clerc.) compares a similar sentiment
of Aristot.: “ Then shall a man be righteous. 15.)
If he does the things which are righteous, and knows
what he does. 2dly., If he does them freely, or out
of choice. Sdly., If he continues firmly and con-
stantly in that course of action.” To which I add
Themist.: ἐκ τῶν τὰ δίκαια πραττόντων ὃ δίκαιος γίνεται,
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ τὰ σώφρονα ὃ σώφρων. See also Slade.

8. ὃ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν. . The
ποιῶν must again be understood of habié ; and there
is a brevity (unnoticed, however, by the Commenta-
tors) which requires to be thus supplied, and the
whole rendered as follows: “ He that practises sin

must not say he is a son of God; no,) he is (a son)
of the Devil (and this son-ship is established by
strong similitude) ; for the Devil has been habitually

1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 757

and perpetually sinning.” It is not necessary to
press on the ax’ ἀρχῆς, which some interpret, “ from
the beginning of the human race.” Rather, “ from
time he began to sin.” It should seem that as the
present tense here denotes continuity of action (See
Bens.), so the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς may import perpetuity of
action. ‘The expression, son of the Devil, occurs at
Joh. 8, 44 & 47., where see the notes.

At the words εἰς τοῦτο---διαβόλου, the argument
requires a καίτοι, and yet. Indeed, the omission, or
peculiar use of the particles, isone of the causes of
difficulty in St. John’s writings. The sentiment is
nearly the same as at ver. 5.; but, as for αἴρειν we
have λύειν, there is no direct allusion to the atoning
for sin. Though, as death and misery are conse-
quences of sin, they are the works of the Devil, and,
therefore, the atonement of Christ as much destroyed
the latter, as his Divine precepts and holy example
did the former. See Bens.

9. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ.

The Commentators have failedto observe thatthe words πᾶς οὐ ποιεῖ
contain nearly the same sentimentas the πᾶς---ἁ μαρτάνει; forson-ship
and intimate union are cognate ideas. They must therefore have the
same sense ; and ἁμαρτίαν ποιεῖ must be explained, like ἁμαρτάνει,
of deliberate and habitual sin. Here, however, some words are added
by way of explanation, to show the πῶς ; and as these words contain
an obscure expression, (ὅτε σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ péver,) and
another of some latitude, (οὐ δύναται,) it is no wonder that they
should have been misunderstood. That they cannot be meant to
assert the doctrines of perfection, and the impossibility of the Saints
falling away, is (as Benson observes) quite certain from the many
exhortations and threatenings of this Epistle (as well as the rest of
the New Testament), which show not only the possibility, but the
danger of the Saints falling away. That, in point of fact, none are
free from sin, is asserted supra, 1, S. And as the sense of ἁμαρτίαν
ov ποιεῖ is Clearly ascertained from ver. 5., so from thence it will
appear what that of ob δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν is not; namely, that it
cannot signify absolute impossibility, by the exertion of any exter-
nal power, for that would prevent every kind of sin as well as habi-
tual and deliberate sin; indeed deliberation would be out of the
question. We must therefore resort to some other mode of inter-
pretation. δύναται some explain, will not, does not choose. But
this, though a not unexampled signification, is too vague. It is
better, with the most eminent Commentators, from Grot. to Rosen.,
to take it of moral impossibility, i. 6. he, as it were, cannot bring

758 1 JOHN, CHAP. Ill.

himself to commit such sin, it is foreign from his disposition.
And Grot. adduces several Scriptural and Classical examples. See
also Wets. This sense, too, of δύνασθαι, is every where recognised
by the antient Commentators, and here, by GEcumen. And in the
same way the expression is understood by Milton, cited by Valpy.
Indeed, the idea is quite common in the modern languages, See a
kindred passage at 5, 18.

The reason for this is then suggested in the words ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
γεγέννηται; i. 6. he remembers his affinity to God. and the obligation
thence resulting to imitate him.

But we have not touched on the obscure expression ὅτε σπέρμᾳ
αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῶ μένει, which is assigned as a reason why he does not
practise sin, The best founded interpretation seems to be that of
Grot., adopted by Bens., Rosenm., and most recent Commentators :
Quia verbum Dei, quod quasi semen est, quo divina natura in nobis
gignitur, in ipso vegetum existit, vel vim suam exserit. Semen Dei
est verbum Evangelii. Matth. 13, 19., 1 Pet, 1, 23. Jac. 1, 18.
Μένειν, hic est inesse, quod intelligendum ἐνεργῶς, ita ut nec are-
factum sit, nee suffocatum, sed naturam efficientiamque retineat.
Est autem talis argumentatio : Fieri non potest, ut qui filius est Dei,
in eo non sit verbum, quod est semen divinum. At verbi vis ea est,
ut nos a peccatis arceat jubendo, vetando, pollicendo, comminando.
All this is true as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.

The vital principle of a holy life committed to our hearts (like a
seedling to the ground), consists not only in the word of God, but
also the Divine grace by that word is made effectual. Here Carpz.
cites the words of Virgil : ‘ igneus est illi vigor et ccelestis origo
Semini.” And he interprets the σπέρμα of the sanctification of the
Holy Spirit, by which it reforms the will, and produces salutary
fruits. Galat. 5,22. An antient Interpreter ap, Gicumen, under-
stands it of the Spirit, received at Baptism.

10. ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστι---οὑτοῦ. Here the Apostle
repeats what he had before said, that ‘ every one
who does not practice righteousness, is not of God:”
but in the words ἐν τούτῳ Gavepa ἐστι Ta τέκνα τοῦ

n A \ “ = /,
Θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, he means to say, that
by this, i.e. the having, or not having or practising
this righteousness, the children of God are plainly
distinguished from those of the devil. Φανερά, “ plain
(to be distinguished).”’ ,

On this general position the Apostle engrafts a
more special one, regarding that part of the duty to
men which consists in love and kindness to our
brethren, i. e. not only our brother Christians, but
our brother men. So Carpz. explains it Φιλαδελφία,
Φιλανβρωπία, Now this is so important as to form a

test of our being sons of God. See Bens.

1 JOHN, CHAP. ΠΙ. 759

The phrases made use of have been all before ex-
plained.

11. From hence to ver. 24. the Apostle continues
the above exhortation, and urges it by various argu-
ments; 1. That the precept is of equal antiquity and
authority with that enjoining holiness of life, as
originating in Christ himself.

᾿Αγγελία is commonly interpreted message: but it
seems to denote a command to be delivered to others,
an injunction. See Bens.

12. οὐ καθὼς ΚΚ ἄϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν. This, Rosenm.
says, is an elliptical expression for οὐκ ἐσμεν ἐκ τοῦ
πονηροῦ καθως Kaiv ἦν. But it seems to be rather an
idiotical and provincial form of expression: and we
may suppose an ellipsis of οὕτω ποιώμεν ὅς, “ And not
as Cain, who was a son of the devil, and murdered his
brother (so det us do, by repressing that love, and
fostering those feelings of hatred, which may tend
to murder).” Then, by way of caution, the Apostle
suggests the cause of this hatred, namely, envy and
malice at his brother’s superior goodness and favour
with God. In which view Rosenm. cites Cic. Cat.
Maj.

18. μὴ θαυμάϑετε, ἀδελφοὶ μου, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς 6 κόσμιος.
Grot., Bens., and Rosenm. think there is here an
igitur ; taking this to be an inference from the pre-
ceding example. So Rosenm. observes: ‘ Mores
contrarii et perversi solent semina et cause esse
discordiae et odiorum.” And he adds: ‘ Indicium
enim impiorum est semper insectari pios.” Yet the
Apostle seems, from the next verse, to hint that as
the profane world was sure to hate Christians, so
they should the more love each other.

14. ἡμεῖς oldapev ὅτι---ἀδελφούς. Bens. well para-
phrases thus: “ But let us not be discouraged by
that hatred, since we have such glorious prospects.
For we know that we have passed over from that
state in which we were liable to the second death,
into that in which we have a well-grounded title to
immortal life, because we love the Christian

760 1 JOHN, CHAP, III.

brethren. He that loveth not his Christian brother,
still remaineth liable to the second death.” See his
note.

15. πᾶς ὃ μισών---ἐστι. A fifth reason for their
cultivating love to the Christian brethren ; namely,
“that hatred of them, or want of love to them, was
a sort of murder, or one step towards it-? And who
would not be shocked at the thought of being a
murderer? (Bens.) Now this was meant to explain
the introduction (somewhat abrupt) of Cain the
Sfratricide, ver. 12. ᾿Ανθρωποκτόνος imports “ a dispo-
sition which tends to violence and murder.” So, I
find, Virg. Atn. 6, 607., places in his Tartarus those
“« quibus invis? fratres, dum vita manebat.” And as
murder cannot but exclude from eternal life, so must
that which is the seed and origin of it disqualify any
one to be a son of God. So Rosenm. observes, that
the intentions are the same in both. . And it may be
added, as Christ not only forbade adultery, but an
evil eye, so is not only murder forbidden, but male-
volence and anger, which tend to it. The same ap-
plies to all other crimes. .

16. ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν ----ἔθηκε, “ By this we (may)
know (what) love (is), namely, that he laid down his
life for us, and (thus) ought we to lay down our
lives for our brethren.’ Now ἀγάπη, like all names
of virtues and vices used in a general way, takes the
article. And Rosenm. renders: ‘‘ the true nature
of love.” But it must surely be mentioned with
reference to Christ, 1. 6. (as Carpz. renders) amor
immensus Christi erga redemptos. With the ἐκεῖνος
Carpz. compares a similar use of the Hebr. N17.

The καὶ contains the apodosis, ‘‘ and we, on our
parts, in return.” On τιϑέναι ψυχὴν, see Joh. 10, 11.
15, 17. 13, 37 & 38. &c. On the force of the ex-
pression ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφών τὰς ψυχὰς τιθέναι,
much has been written. It would seem most agree-
able to the words to understand it, with Grot., Are-
teus, and others, of martyrdom, which many were
then called upon to endure. Yet this the context

1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 761

scarcely permits. I am therefore inclined to think,
with Carpz., Rosenm., and Jaspis, that here is to be
considered dlsaie ἐπε: notio universalis, and the ex-
pression (which seems to be proverbial), is not to be

rigorously interpreted, but understood of making
very great sacrifices, exposing ourselves to imminent
per ils, as omnia facere aliorum caussa, signifies que-
vis officia humanitatis et charitatis, et fidem pre-
stare summam. See more in Carpz., who adduces
Scriptural examples. See also Doddr.

17. ὃς δ᾽ av ἔχη---ἐν αὐτῷ. Biov, facultates, property,
that on which we live. See Schleus. Lex. Χρείαν
ἔχειν, is one of the many phrases formed from ἔ ἔχω
and a noun, and signifies to be in need. Kai κλείση
τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦς On ona. see Luke 1,
78. 2 Cor. 6,11., and the note. Αποκλείειν signifies
to shut out, and here it is used figuratively of shutting
up one’s heart, and barring it against the entrance
of compassion. In πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, the inter-
rogation involves a strong negation.

18. μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν- -ἀκηβείᾳ. In this antithetical
sentence λόχῳ and ἔργῳ (which are often opposed in
the Classical writers) are explained, and the sense
strengthened by γλώσσῃ and ἀληθείᾳ. The sentiment
inculeated is obvious. Compare James 2, 15 & 16.
Wets. cites Theogn. 972., to which I add Soph.
Antig. 539. λόγοις δ᾽ ἔ eyo Φιλοῦσαν οὐ «στέργω φίλην.

19. καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας Ermer,
«« And by this we know whether we are of the truth
(in this respect,” i. e. of love to others). Rosenm.
compares the phrases ἐκ Θεοῦ εἶναι, and εἶναι ἐκ τὴς
ἀληθείας, 1 i. 6. to be agreeable to truth, and sincerely
profess it. And Carpz. adds, ἐκ τοῦ Διαβόλου εἶναι,
Joh. 3, 8. ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, &c. ‘The ἀληθ. he explains
true religion. Carpz. understands it of the pure
doctrines of the Gospel, or holiness of life, or both.
Thus he takes the expression ἐκ τὴς ἀληθείας εἶναι to
be equivalent to ἀληθινοὶ εἶναι ; and therefore by oi
ἐκ τὴς ἀληθείας may be denoted true Christians, sons
of God, and united with him. But the context seems

762 1 JOHN, CHAP, III.

to limit the expression to that part of true Christi-
anity, which consists in love of our neighbour for
God's sake.

19. καὶ ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν"
The future indicative is here for the subjunctive.
The sense is: “ And in the sight, in respect of Him
(our Judge), we may, in this important respect,
pacify, set at rest, and quiet our hearts.” For he
who truly loves all men, may trust that the mercy
and favour of God will not be withheld from him.
On the above signification of πείθω something appo-
site may be found in the note on Matt. 28, 14. See
also Grot. and Bens.

20. ὅτι ἐάν--- γινώσκει πάντα. Some difficulty here
arises from extreme brevity, to remove which a
clause must be supplied from the preceding verse,
either (with Bens.) at the commencement of the sen-
tence; or, (with Rosenm.) after καρδία, thus: “But
if our heart and conscience condemn us of want of
this kind feeling towards men (then may we noé set
our minds at rest, and hope for the mercy and favour
of God).” Such seems to be the more natural me-
thod, and it is supported by the authority of the
antients. (See, however, another proposed by Morus
and Noesselt. ap. Rosenm.) But perhaps this clause,
and especially the next and more difficult one, may
be illustrated by supposing an aposiopesis. ‘The
words pel2wy ἐστὶ»----πάᾶντα, may be thus rendered :
“Nay, still less reason can we have to assure our
hearts, since God knoweth far more of our failings
than even our memories and consciences can supply
(for He knoweth them all); still less reason, there-
fore, will there be to assure our hearts.” See Slade.

21. ἐαν ἡ καρδία---Θεόν. ‘This is the opposite to
the former sentiment. The μὴ καταγινώσκῃ must
not be rigorously interpreted: and the case supposed
is that of a son of God whose conscience is clear,
not seared, and deadened by repeated strokes, and
where the examination has been diligent, and the
scrutiny unsparing.

1 JOHN, CHAP. III. 768

The wage. has been before explained. On
the term see the note on Hebr. 4, 16. Bens.,
Schoettg., and Vater rightly connect these words
with the preceding, as assigning a reason for his holy
confidence. A punctuation strongly supported by
5, 14.

22. Here St. John assigns another reason for cul-
tivating universal righteousness, and_ particularly
mutual love; namely, “ that then their prayers
would be heard, and God would grant them all pro-
per blessings.” (Bens.)

23. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ----ἡμῖν, ** And his
commandment, the chief of all, is, that we believe in
the Divine mission of his Son Jesus Christ, and love
each other according to the injunction he gave us.”
Carpz. takes ἡ ἐντολὴ to mean the sum of the pre-
cepts: 4. d. ‘* Ordo salutis talia postulat,” πίστιν
καὶ ἀγάπην; aS 1 Tim. 1, 5. τὸ τέλος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας
ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ πίστεως. Rosenm. observes, that the
singular is used, because one precept follows from
the other. He therefore who believeth in Jesus,
and loveth his fellow creatures, obeys the religion of
God, and is accepted by him (ver. 24). ;

24. καὶ 6 τηρῶν---αὐτῷῴ, ‘* And he who keepeth his
precepts (generally) abideth in Him, and He in
him ;” which implies love and favour and blessing
from God. In the next sentence is given a test of
the having this abiding of God in them, namely,
by the imparting of the Holy Spirit and its gifts,
whether extraordinary or ordinary, which, in either
case, imply the approbation and favour of God, and
from the presence or absence of which we may infer
our spiritual state. Such seems to be the true sense,
though the Commentators do not quite see it. Ro-
senm. compares Eph. 1, 14. 2 Cor. 1, 22. and
Mackn., Joh. 14, 23. Benson well observes, that
from this text and 2, 20 and 27. and 5, 16. it appears
that many of those to whom the Apostle wrote, had
the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Nay, he says,
that most, if not al/, the adult Christians every

764 1 JOHN, CHAP, III. Iv.

where had those miraculous gifts. But this seems
on many accounts utterly incredible.

CHAP. IV.

Ver. 1—6. What has just been said of true Chris-
tians having the Spirit, as a proof of Divine favour,
introduces a digression on false teachers, or persons
pretending to spiritual gifts ; and rules are given for
discriminating one from the other.

1. μὴ παντὶ πνέυματι πιστεύετε. By πνευμ. most
Commentators understand one setting up for an in-
spired teacher; as 1 Tim. 4, 1. and 1 Cor. 12, 10.
And Rosenm. observes: “ Nam profiteri est homi-
nis concedentis aliquid, vel negantis.” But actions
are often ascribed to things, especially faculties
which tend to produce action. And some Commen-
tators maintain that it signifies the Spirit, by which
the man is actuated. (See Bens.) ‘This, however,
comes to the same thing; or both may be admitted ;
nay, the signification doctrines (which some adopt)
may be included. Here I would compare Philostr.
Vit. Ap. 3, 45. Olear. καὶ yap κέρδος εἴη μήτε πιστεύειν,
μήτε ἀπιστεῖν πᾶσιν. Phocyl. 13, 74. μὴ πίστευε rax-
ora, πρὶν ἀτρεκέως πέρας ὕψει. Diog. Laert. 9, 88.
δοκιμάϑειν τὰς Φαντασίας.

1. ἀλλὰ δοκιμάϑετε τὰ πνεύματα, εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν.
Here πνεῦμα must be taken in the second and third
of the above senses, 1. 6. “try whether they seem to
have originated from God and the Holy Spirit.”
The reason given is, that many false teachers are
gone abroad into the world. The ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς
τὸν κόσμιον is explained by τοί. and most Commen-
tators, publice se ostenderunt, vel apparuerunt popu-
lo; as Joh. 6, 14. 10, 36. 12, 46. Still there is no
example of ἐξερχ. εἰς τὸν κοσμ..» which appears to be a
provincial expression.

ῳ͵ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκετε τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘ By this
rule which follows (a rule, too, given by Christ,

1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 765

Matt. 11, 6. 26, 31.), ye may know.’ A sense of
the present Indicative, frequent in St. John. Our
English Translators, and Doddr., take γινώσκετε in
the Imperative. But this is not so proper, nor so
suited to the Apostle’s style.

2. πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ
ἐληλυθότα, ἐκ τ. Θ. ἐ.

The πνεῦμα must have the first of the above senses, i. 6. the person.
‘Opodoyet is rendered, by Rosenm., docet. But it rather signifies,
“* professes and teaches.” ὈἜρχεσθαι is a vox solennis of the mission
and appearance of Divine legates. Ἔν σαρκὶ. It is truly remarkable
that so many able Commentators, as Grot., Vorst., and others ap.
Pole, should take up with an interpretation which could only have
been expected from the Socinians (who are resolved to find their
opinions every where), namely, “‘ was a mere man.’* Which is so
contrary to St. John’s perpetual assertions in his Gospel and Epistles,
that it cannot be the sense. And even had that not been the case,
the sense were too strained and unnatural a one to be adopted.
Adverting to the known opinions of the hereticks of that age, which
consisted not in a denial of the Divinity, but the humanity of Christ,
the best Commentators are agreed that there is reference to the
tenets of the Doctors and others, who held Jesus Christ to have been
a mere φάντασμα, and not having areal body. Now the Apostle
maintains that he came really (clothed) in the flesh, i. e. in a human
body, and subject to all corporeal pains and weaknesses. As to the
being a mere man, that is quite another thing; and that St. John
could not mean that is clear from what has been said above, nay, the
passage supplies an inference the very contrary. The arguments
for the other interpretation, adduced by Grot., Vorst., and Schliting,
are too weak to merit attention; and the interpretation above
adopted is established, beyond doubt, by Bens. and Carpzov.

The var. lect. ὃ Avec τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν may be justly considered, with

Mill, &c., as a mere marginal Scholium. And the textual reading,
here and just after, besides other proofs, is established by an imita-
tion of St. John’s disciple, Polycarp, Epist. ad Phil. ὃ. 2. (cited by
Carpz.) πᾶς γὰρ ὅς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυ-
θῆναι.

8. καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ---ἔστι. This is (after the
manner of St. John) a strengthening of the position
just laid down by an affirmation of the converse.

Kal τοῦτο ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου---ἤδη. Here there is

* Now (as Mackn. observes) the Doctors as well as people be-
lieved the Son of God to be himself God. This has been abundantly
proved by some learned Jews. See the Lettres de quelques Juifs,
addressed to Voltaire, and the Vindicie Biblicz of a Jearned Jew of
this country.

766 1 JOHN, CHAP. IV.

an ellipsis either of χρῆμα, or πρᾶγμα, or of σημεῖον,
or (as Carpzov and most Commentators suppose)
πνεῦμα. See the note on 2, 18., from which and the
present passage, Mackn. observes, “ it appears that
Antichrist is not any particular person, nor any par-
ticular succession of persons in the church, but a
general term for all false teachers in every age.”
Now these false prophets, Carpzov remarks, had, in
various places, appeared, and endeavoured to per-
suade others that the Messiah would come pera πολ-
λῆς Paytacias, and not ἐν σαρκὶ. But, especially
among the Philippians, there seem to have been
these enemies τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
of whom both St. Paul makes mention in his Epistle
3, 18., and Polycarp in his Ep. §. 13. πᾶς yap ὅς ἂν
μὴ Gporoyy “I. X. ἐν σαρκὶ ἔληλυθέναι, ᾿Αντίχριστός ἐστι"
καὶ ὅς μὴ ὁμολογήση τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἐκ τοῦ
διαβόλου ἐστί.

4. ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστε, τεκνία, καὶ νενικήκατε
αὐτούς. Rosenm. takes the expression ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
εἶναι to be equivalent to intelligens esse religionis.
But this is too limiteda sense. It must here denote
those who to sound knowledge unite right disposi-
tions, supported by the Holy Spirit. See more in
the note on ver. 1. and elsewhere. Νενικήκατε (which
is vaguely explained by Rosenm.) must signify, “ ye
have thwarted and frustrated all their attempts, by
force, or fraud, to pervert you from the truth, and
purity of the Gospel.” The next words ὅτι μείϑων
ἐστιν ὃ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμιῳ Seem to have reference
to ἃ clause omitted ; not, however, that supplied by
Benson, but the following: “ (and no wonder) be-
cause,” &c. The 6 ἐν ὑμῖν must denote, “* God, who,
by the Holy Spirit, enlightens and strengthens you.”

The ὃ ἐν τώ κόσμω is explained, by Rosenm.,
ἐς inscii errori et ignorantize dediti;” q. d. “ The
doctrine of God, which is in you, is strong enough
to refute those who are given to error; Verum est
magis potentie falso, praeponderat falso ;” as if no
more be meant than the adage, “ Truth is mighty

1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 767

and will prevail.” But this is an utter perversion of
a passage which plainly inculcates the doctrine of
spiritual influence, both for good, and for evil.

5. αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσι, “ The teachers I allude
to are not (I repeat) of God, but are of the world,
mere worldlings. Hence from that spirit they speak,
and (from the same spirit) the world heareth them
(and receives doctrines adapted to their taste).”
Such is (I conceive) the full sense; and all the above
subauditions are requisite. See Benson. Rosenm.
illustrates the sense from Joh. 3, 31.

6. ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, &c. By ἡμεῖς, the best Com-
mentators are agreed, is meant, “ we, the Apostles.”
But it may include other divinely commissioned
teachers; as Timothy, Titus, and others. ᾿Ακούειν
is here to be taken as in the preceding verse. See
Benson.

6. ἐκ τούτου γινώσκομεν TO πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ
πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. From this, i.e. the receiving, or
the rejecting this doctrine, we may know (i.e. per
κοίνωσιν, ** ye may know’) how to distinguish the
spirit of truth, and that of error (and the persons
who are thereby actuated).*

7. The Apostle now returns to the subject of love
to others, treated of at 3, 23. And this reiteration
Benson ascribes to the false teachers being very de-
fective in this duty. Ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι.
Grot. observes, that by the very name of the Deity
every one understands what is most excellent. We
may, however, especially advert to that name by

* « None (observes Benson) but Apostles and Prophets, persons
who gave abundant proof of a divine mission, can justly speak in
this knowledge, and make the following them, or their doctrines,
the standard of truth, or detection of error.” I would add that, as
then the receiving the Apostles as divinely commissioned teachers,
and embracing their doctrines, was the way to distinguish those who
were of God; so now the reverently receiving the truths of the
Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures, and promulgated by
God's ministers, properly commissioned, is the touch-stone te try
men's hearts, whether they “‘ savour of the things that be of God,”
or ‘‘ those that be of men.”

768 1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv.

which the Northern languages designate Him, and
which, I believe, to be the adjective good taken sub-
stantively.

The phrases “ to be born of God and to know God,”
have been before explained. They, of course, imply
an imitation of the excellences of God. ‘* Such a
person (to use the words of Benson in his para-
phrase), like a genuine son, resembles his heavenly
Father, and shows that he rightly understands the
nature and will of God, as made known by the Chris-
tian revelation.”

8. ὁ μὴ ἀγαπῶν, &c. This, after the foregoing
note, can require little explanation. Οὐκ ἔγνω must
mean, ‘ does not truly know God.” Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη
ἐστίν, “ God is love itself,” i. 6. the most benevolent
of beings, the benevolent Being. See Benson.

9. ἐν τούτῳ---ϑϑήσωμεν δι’ αὐτοῦ. Here we have the
same sentiment as at Joh. 8, 16., where see the note.
Ἔν ἡμῖν, κ΄ ἴῃ respect of us.” By ϑήσωμεν are de-
noted all the blessings of the Gospel, both in this
world and especially in the next. Rosenm. explains
it, knowledge, virtue, peace of mind, hope of felicity
here, and the fruition of it hereafter. Σώφϑειν, cwr7-
gia, &c. have sometimes this extensive sense.

10. ἐν τούτῳ ἐστιν yj ἀγάπη. Quod generalius dix-
erat, id specialits explicat. (Grot.) St. John’s
meaning is, that God loved us first. (See ver. 19.)
Men are, generally, very ready to love those by
whom they are first beloved. But such was the
astonishing love of God to men, that, when they were
sinners and enemies, he so loved the world as tosend
his most beloved Son to live and die for them. ‘This
was a matter of free-grace, or pure favour. (Bens.)

10. οὐχ ots. For ὅτι οὐχ. “ This love was espe-
cially stamped by his sending (as a pledge of it) his
beloved Son, for the purpose of expiating our sins.”

11. ἀγαπητοὶ, i—ayarav. The Apostle directs us
to imitate the example of Him whose sons we pro-
fess to be.

12. Θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται. Bens. paraphrases:

1 JOHN, CHAP. IV. 769

“ No man hath, with his bodily eyes, seen Gop at
any time.” And, therefore, we cannot have such
visible converse and sensible communion with him,
as we may have one with another. But if we love
one another, we are in the Divine favour, and our
love of God is perfect and complete.” So Rosenm.:
“no one is conversant with God, as men with men:
but although there be not such a society with God,
yet we assuredly know that we do love and are loved
by him, if we love others.” The words ὁ Θεός ἐν ἱμῖν
μένει, &c., signify that there is real conjunction and
perfect love.

13. ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν---ἡμῖν, The same senti-
ment as at 3, 4., except that here is added ὅτι ἐν αὐὖ-
τῷ μένομεν. ‘The Apostle now mentions another evi-
dence that we are united with God, namely, that
although God be not visibly present, yet we enjoy
the benefits he confers on us, and so we know we are
conjoined with him. (Rosenm.) The πνευμ. com-
prises all the manifestations of the Spirit, both ordi-
nary, and extraordinary, on which so much has been
already said.

14. καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεβα----κόσμου. Σωτῆρα is in appo-
sition with υἱὸν, and has the sense of, as Saviour, i. e.
to be the Saviour. There seems to be a clause
omitted,* which Rosenm. well supplies thus (as to
what I said, ** that the Son was sent by God for the
salvation of men,” and that thus a striking proof was
given of the love of God, no one should doubt) : for
we are eye-witnesses to the thing. We have seen
him dead and risen again.” Now that he should die
for the redemption of the human race our Lord had
said, Matt. 20, 26 & 28., and assuredly God would
not have raised him from the dead, had he been a
deceiver.

15. ὃς dv ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι--- Θεῷ, On the connection
see Benson. ‘The sense is: ‘* Whosoever shall con-
fess that Jesus is the Son of God (the Saviour sent
for our salvation), he is really united with God (in
mutual love).” Now the Apostle takes for granted,

[9]

* VOL. VIII. oD

770 1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv.

not only that the profession is sincere, but produc-
tive of asuitable conduct. And, indeed, as in times
like those, open confession and undaunted profession
implied sincerity, it was likely to draw with it the
other. See Benson.

16. καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐγνώκαμιεν----ἡμῖν. ““ And (to induce
men so to believe) we (Apostles) can affirm that we
do surely know the love which God hath to us.” See
the note on ver. 14. Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη---ἐν αὐτῷ. An
earnest repetition of what was said supra, ver. 8 &
122 & 3, Sh.

17. ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται---κρίσεως, ““ By this (may
we know that) our love is perfect and sincere,
namely, by having confidence (of our acceptance) in
the day of judgment.” Such seems to be the true
sense. ‘Though Translators and Commentators dif-
fer, and especially on the signification of ἵνα. See
Pole’s Synop., Wolf, and Benson. Μεθ’ ἡμῶν, within
us,inus. A rare sense.

17. ὅτι καθὼς---τούτῳ, namely, ‘‘ for the reason that
as God is (thus disposed towards us men), so also
are we in this world (disposed) towards others,
namely, because we imitate the example of love, &c.
set us by our heavenly Father, and therefore may
hope for acceptance.” Such (chiefly formed upon
Benson and Rosenm.) seems to be the true sense,
though the Commentators differ. See Pole’s Syn.
and Carpzov.

18. φόβος οὐκ ἔστιν---ἔχει. The literal sense is as
follows: “ (Slavish) fear exists not in this love, but
perfect love (such as this) casts aside fear; for (such)
fear carries with it terror (which is inconsistent
with love; since) he who so feareth is not perfected
in love, does not love perfectly and sincerely.”
Φόβος here signifies a fear, not of displeasing God,
but of incurring his punishment, which conscience
raises. The rest of the sentence requires little ex-
planation. See Benson, or Rosenm. and Slade, the
latter of whom truly observes that casting out fear
cannot mean the fear of losing or suffering any thing

1 JOHN, CHAP. Iv. 771

by means of our brother; for, in truth, perfect love
might not always exclude such a fear: but the ex-
pression plainly refers to the preceding verse, and is
contrasted with a joyful confidence in the mercy of
God; and the word κόλασις, which follows, is pro-
perly opposed to that feeling of satisfaction and de-
light which flows from such a confidence.

19. ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμιεν---ἡμᾶς. The best Commenta-
tors, from Grot. downwards, take ἀγαπῶμεν in the
subjunctive (on which see Benson): “ Let us there-
fore (so) love him, because he first loved 5. A
repetition of the argument above. [Πρῶτος is here
put for πρότερος.

20. ἐὰν τις---ΦἉΨεύστης ἐστίν. The reason is plain.
For he really loves God who imitates him. Now
in God is the most perfect benevolence towards
all men. Whosoever, therefore, hateth men, hateth
God, and thwarts his benevolent designs. (Rosenm.)
‘O yap μὴ ἀγαπῶν---ἀγαπᾶν. Rosenm. compares
Philo de Decal. p. 761 pb. ἀμήχανον εὐσεβεῖσθαι τὸν
ἀόρατον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰς τοὺς ἐμφανεῖς καὶ ἐγγὺς ἀσεβούντων.
He also gives a statement of the argument. The
following, however, given by Slade (from Whitby) is
the simpler. ‘“ The Apostie is contrasting our love
of God with the love of our neighbour: in a reli-
gious point of view, the obligation to both is the
same; both being equally enjoined, ver. 21. And
with respect to circumstances, purely natural, we
have more powerful motives to the love of our neigh-
bour, as being more fully acquainted with him by
ocular experience, than we can possibly be with
God.” See 2,4. 9,10 & 11. 3,17. 4, 12. and the
notes. Benson observes that there is an allusion to
the proverb, “ Ignoti nulla cupido.” But that seems
little probable.

21. καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν---ἔχομεν---αὐτοῦ. The
ἐντολὴ here is the ἀγγελία mentioned at 3, 11., where
see the note. Now this ἐντολὴ is, that “ he who pro-
fesses to love God, should love his brother also,”

3D 2

772 1 JOHN, CHAP. IV. V.

Otherwise, by neglecting the latter, he cannot
acceptably perform the former. It is the union of
both that can alone obtain the favour of God.

CHAP. V.

Verse 1. From hence, to ver. 13., St. John con-
tinues to recommend that love of the Christian
brethren which arises from a love to God, and a
regard to his commandments: and intimates, that a
true faith in Jesus, as the Christ, will enable us to
overcome the temptations of this world. And to
establish such a faith in them, he refers them to the
testimony or evidence which God had given to the
mission of his Son Jesus Christ, to which, if they
paid a proper regard, they might, through him,
expect everlasting life. (Bens.)

1. πᾶς 6 πιστεύων ὅτι---γεγέννηται. ‘This is closely
connected with the preceding: and the Apostle goes
on to enjoin mutual love of Christian brethren ;
urging it on this ground, that Christians are children
of God, our heavenly Father. The πιστεύων implies
(as Rosenm. explains) a true and sincere belief, and
that shown in a profession of faith, in a hope in the
promises, and, as resulting from that hope, a fulfil-
ment of the precepts. On the force of ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ
vey. see the notes on 3, 9., and 4, 7. The καὶ at καὶ
πᾶς, signifies but. Of πᾶς 6 ἀγαπῶν, which words
have the air of an adage, the sense is obvious: but,
as Rosenm. observes, we are to understand them of
brothers of a common father.

2. ἐν τούτω γινώσκομεν ὅτι---τήηρωμεν. ‘These words
are connected with the preceding; the Apostle
arguing e generali ad speciale. Since what was said
at ver. 1., was universally true, so also it holds good
of the love of God. (Rosenm.) There has here
been some doubt about the construction, and, as de-
pendent thereon, the sense ; and the contrary would
seem more apposite. Qicumen. supposes an inver-

1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 773

sion, Grot., a transposition ; thus: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκο-
μεν ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπώμιν, ὅταν ἀγαπῶμεν TA τέκνα αὐ-
τοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμιεν. And so Dr.
Clarke. Carpz. would take ἀγαπῶμεν for a second
Future; and he renders the ὅταν quamdiu. Another
interpretation is proposed by Morus, which may be
-seen in Rosenm. ‘The frst mentioned method
seems to be somewhat preferable, but it is utterly
unauthorized, and too violent to be admitted.
Indeed, the sense yielded by the words as they now
stand, is unobjectionable in itself, and not inappo-
site; and they may be thus rendered: “ By this
may we know that we love the children of God
aright, when (or in that) we love God, and keep his
commandments.” The aright is well supplied by
Bens. ; and the ὅταν is by Rosenm. taken for ὅτι;
though that is not absolutely necessary.

3. αὕτη γὰρ---τηρώμεν, “for this is the decisive
proof of our love to God, that we keep his command-
ments.”? ‘The Commentators remark that the ἀγάπη
is to be taken objectively, and there is in it a metony-
my for ostenst amoris. And they might have com-
pared 4, 10., ἐν τούτῳ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη ὅτι, ὅζο. On the
sentiment see Bens. “The words καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ, &c.,
are supposed by him to answer to a probable objec-
tion; and he thinks there is a meiosis; referring to
Matt. 11, 28—30., and other texts. It should rather
seem that they are levelled against the Jews or Juda-
izers, who supported a system whose injunctions
were a heavy burthen; whereas the yoke of Christ is
comparatively easy, and his burthen light. And, as
Slade says, “this must refer not to extreme but to
ordinary cases.” In proof of this the Apostle, in
proceeding to show how it is easy, adverts to” those
points in which the Gospel is especially superior to
the Law, namely, the love of God, as opposed to the
fear of him, that renewal of the heart by the com-
munication of Divine Grace, which the Law did not,
and could not provide. The sentiments of the

᾿
« ᾽
oa Se

"174 1 JOHN, CHAP. ν.

Heathen writers on this subject are adduced by
Grot. and Priceeus, with which we may dispense.

4. ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημιένον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, νικᾷ τὸν κόσ-
pov, “ Now, as a proof of this (γὰρ), whosoever is
born of God, conquers (the temptations of) the
world.” Πᾶν is the neuter for the masculine. An
idiom common both in the Scriptural and Classical
writers, and which indicates universality. Here it
is possible there is an ellipsis of γένος. Whether it
comprehends (as Slade thinks) the regenerate princi-
ple in the soul, may be doubted. What is meant by
the being born of God, and the mode by which the
victory is obtained, has been before shown. But the
grand principle by which the victory is obtained, is
suggested by the Apostle himself in the words καὶ
αὕτη--- πίστις ἡμῶν, where at νίκη there is a metonymy
of the effect for the efficient ; and αὕτη is for τοῦτο ;
as just before. The Aorist is used to denote what
happens at all times, and is customary. How faith
produces this effect, can require no explication.

5. tis ἐστιν---Θεοῦ. Here (as Rosenm. observes)
the Interrogation is strongly affirmative; as 2, 22. ;
q. ἃ. “ if such a person cannot conquer the world, no
other can.” Now, the believing that Jesus is the
Son of God, signifies not only believing in his God-
head (for such is the import of the title Son of God,
on which see the excellent note of Mackn., and
Horsley ap. Slade), but in his power and ability to
impart salvation, by atoning for our sins. This will
apply to every individual, since all are sinners. The
connection with the following is thus traced by
Rosenm.: The reason why he who believes Jesus to
be the Son of God, can overcome evil affections is,
that in him was fulfilled all that was expected from
the Messiah. For he both instituted baptism, and
expiated us by his blood. 'To this is added the
weighty testimony of God himself. These three things,
then, as confirming the same thing, take away all
doubt.” See Bens,

1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 775

0. οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Incous ὁ
Χριστός.

The best Commentators are agreed that here διὰ is put for ἐν
(which, as well as διὰ, is often put for σὺν), and that ὁ ἐλθὼν dv
ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος signifies, ‘ came with the use of (i. 6. introdu-
cing) baptism, and in order to shed his blood,” i. e. in order to pu-
rify and to save. See Pole’s Syn. (cited by Slade), and also Whitby,
Doddr., and Mackn. Many recent Commentators, as Zachariz,
Bengel, Moldenh., and Rosenra., think that by his baptism is meant
his own baptism by John, when was pronounced the testimony of
God to his Divine mission. This appears to me not so suitable a
sense. The opinion of Gomar, Hamm., Bens., and Horsley, that the
Apostle meant the blood and water which issued from our Lord’s
side, has little probability, and is refuted by Mr. Slade. As to the
interpretation of Grot., it is utterly untenable. 1 must, for my own
part, acquiesce in the opinion of Whitby, and others above referred
to; and I cannot but think, with Carpz., that St. John intended the
two sacraments ; by water, meaning the λοῦτρον παλιγγενεσίας, and
by blood, i. 6. the Lord’s Supper, in which the wine is poured out as
a symbol of the blood of the New Covenant. By the former (Carpz.
adds), we are regenerated, and become sons of God; and by the
latter, we are united with God, and obtain a victory over the world
(ver. 4 & 5.).

In the words οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι povov, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι
καὶ τῷ αἵματι the Apostle (as Rosenm. observes)
shows that the words preceding were expressed con-
sideraté. Compare Joh. 19, 30. καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστι τὸ
μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα ἐστιν ἡ ἀληθεία, * Moreover it
is the Spirit that hath taught us this doctrine respect-
ing the Saviour, and the purpose of his coming upon
the earth, and hath borne witness to the truth
thereof; and firmly may we rely on his testimony,
since that Spirit is truth itself.” Such seems to be
the best founded sense. Rosenm. thinks, that the
last words refer to those passages of the Gospel of
St. John, where the Spirit of truth is mentioned.
The ἀληθεία he refers to the atéevria and ἀξιοπιστία
of the divine testimony. And the ὅτι (he observes)
answers to the Hebr. °5, stqguidem, quippe. Various,
however, are the interpretations of the passage that
have been proposed, for which I must refer the

reader to Pole, Wolf, Bens., and Rosenm.

7,8. On these very celebrated verses tracts, nay whole volumes
have been written. It were hopeless for me to attempt, in such a
limited space as the nature of my plan permits (and especially to-

776 1 JOHN, CHAP. V.

wards the conclusion of a work which has already far exceeded the
prescribed bounds,) to give any satisfactory view of so extensive
ἃ question as they involve. I think it better, therefore, for the pre-
sent, to decline any examination of the passage ; and 1 am the more
induced to do this, since able condensed views of the question are
to be found in works which I presume most of my readers possess,
especially Slade’s Annotations, Horne’s Introduction, Nolan on the
Greek Vulgate, and finally (instar omnium), the recent Treatise of
the venerable and very learned Bp. Burgess, which has caused some
of those who were most firmly opposed to the authenticity of the
verses to hesitate, and others, to sing their παλινώδια. Now as
few could have conceived it possible for so much more to have been
said in defence of the verses than had before been brought forward,
and as no one can foresee the perfection to which Biblical research
may hereafter be carried, so I would deprecate that spirit by which
this and other similar supports of our faith are abandoned, with
an inconsiderateness that contemplates our stores as inexhaustible.

To me it appears probable that the verses are genuine: but I am
inclined to agree with the learned Bps. Horsley and Middleton that
they will, if genuine, not decidedly prove the doctrine of the
Trinity; and therefore by far too much anxiety about the determi-
nation of the critical question as to their authenticity has been felt
and expressed by the Orthodox in general. Much, too, is it to be
lamented that controversies on a passage which affects (as most
think) our faith, should have been made the means of violating that
Christian charity without which faith itself and knowledge were
vain, and a tinkling cymbal.

9. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυ-
pla τοῦ Θεοῦ μείϑων ἐστιν. Λαμβ., ‘receive and admit ἃ
testimony in a court of justice.” A forensic term,
Thus according to Deut. 17, 6. 19, 15. the testimony
of two or three witnesses was to be received. Hence
the Apostle adds: ὅτι adry—viod αὐτοῦ, ““ For that is
to be accounted as the testimony of God, which he
hath testified of hisSon.” From this concurrent tes-
timony it appears, that Jesus was declared to be the
Son of God by God himself. (Rosenm.) See Bens.,
from whom the above is chiefly derived.

10. ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔχει THY μαρτυ-
ρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ““ He that believeth on Jesus, as the
Son of God, or the Messiah, hath received, and re-
tains in himself, the above mentioned divine testi-
mony.” (Bens.) ἔχει ἐν ἑαυτῷ is emphatical, and
indicates firm assent, surety, and safety. See Est.,
who takes the ἐν for σὺν, secum. Ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ

ee ee

1 JOHN, CHAP. ¥. 777

Θεῴ, ψεύστην πεποίηκεν, “ treats God asa liar; acts
as if he thought him so;” as 1,10. The preterite is
put for the present, “ more Hebreo,” Grot. says;
but this use is found in the Classical writers. In ὅτι
οὐ----τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Θεὸς is put for αὐτὸς. In which
Grot. again recognises a Hebraism. But it seems
rather used reverenter. The idiom in μαρτυρίαν
μεμαρτ. is very common. -

11. καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία--ταὐτοῦ ἐστιν, “ And
this is (the chief thing testified to summum testimoni-
um, as Rosenm. explains) that he hath bestowed onus
(the means of attaining) eternal salvation. And this
salvation is attained through his Son.” Αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ
μαρτυρία, as Joh. 1,19. ‘* Here (observes Rosenm.)
St. John shows how nearly our happiness is con-
nected with this doctrine of Jesus, the Son of God.
For by the Son is obtained salvation; by him the
Father has opened the way to eternal bliss. ‘There-
fore the sum of the Gospel consists in acknowledg-
ing Jesus as the Christ, or the Son of God. Com-
pare Joh. 17, 3. Matt. 16, 16.”

12. ὁ ἔχων---ϑωὴν. Rosenm. takes ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν
for ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ws υἱὸν ; as Matt. 145. ὡς προφήτην
αὐτὸν εἶχον. See Hardy. Vorst. and Pisc. explain:
‘‘amplectitur per fidem affectuosam et obedientem.”
But I prefer (with Benson) to take the ἔχων for κα-
τέχων ; not unlike the ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῶ at ver. 10. ἔχει
τὴν ϑωήν. Grot., Hardy, and others explain, ‘* hatha
promise of and sure title to eternal life.” Rosenm. :
‘© may hope for.” So Menoch.: ‘* habet vitam gratiz
in re, et ρου in spe,’”’ hath the means of attaining
it. The opposite is expressed in οὐ py—ody ἔχει,
which words require no explanation.

13, ταῦτα---τοῦ Θεοῦ. There seems, at first sight,
a sort of tautology in these words. But this is re-
moved by supposing, with Vorst., Beza, Gom.,
Hamm., Bens., Carpz., and Rosen., that πιστεύειν here
denotes emphatically a continuance, constancy in,
and increase of belief. Which is preferable to read-
ing, with Grot., for ἵνα mor., οἱ πιστεύοντες ; ἃ mere

778 1 JOHN, CHAP. V.

emendation. The sense is: “that ye may know
and be assured that ye have (thereby) the means of
attaining eternal life; and that (knowing this), ye
may indeed believe and continue in the pure Gospel.”

14. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν 7% παῤῥησία. ““ΤῸ enforce the
foregoing exhortation to believers, namely, to be
confirmed and constant in the faith, the Apostle
shows them here what a special advantage believers
have above other persons, namely, confidence in all
their approaches to God, and a full assurance.
There seems to be in this and the next verse an allu-
sion to the promise which our Lord made to his
Apostles, and which John has recorded in his Gos-
pel, c. 14, 12—14.; also c. 16, 23 and 24.” (Valpy.)

The αὕτη ἡ παῤῥησία is used as the preceding
αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία, αὕτη ἡἣ μαρτυρία. The sense is:
“and on this (namely, that we know we may expect
future salvation,) rests our sure confidence in God.”
Tlagéyoia is taken as at 3, 21.

14. ὅτι ἐὰν τι αἰτώμιεθα κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ἀκούει
ἡμῶν, “that if we pray for any thing according to
his will, he will hear τι5. The κατὰ ro θέλημα αὐτοῦ
is explained by Rosenm., “such things as may tend
to his glory, and to our spiritual good.” What is
chiefly inculcated (continues he) is, that we are to
leave all to the divine will, according to which the
whole universe is governed after the example of
Christ, who prayed: ‘‘ If it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; yet not my will, but thine be done.”
Bens. understands the whole of this verse and the
remaining ones as chiefly containing directions to
those who had the extraordinary and miraculous
spiritual gifts, how to use them. But though that
seems to throw some light on ver. 16 and 17., yet it
is too hypothetical to be safely adopted. It, there-
fore, appears better, with most Commentators, to
keep these separate from the two following (which
seem addressed to the Apostles only), and under-
stand them of the prayers of Christians in general.

15. καὶ ἐὰν οἴδαμεν ὅτι---αὐτοῦ, Plain as the words

1 JOHN, CHAP. V. 779

may seem, there is some difficulty in the sentiment,
which Morus ap. Rosenm. attempts to remove by
rendering thus: “ Et si hoc est verum, eum nos
exaudire, verum est et hoc: nos habere res petitas ab
illo (nosque eas illi debere acceptas referre).” But
to lay such a stress on rag’ αὐτοῦ, is too arbitrary and
harsh. It is better to take the words in their plain
and natural sense, thus: ‘* And knowing, as we do,
that he heareth us, in whatever petitions we prefer,
we may know that we have (i. 6. shall have) from him
the petitions we thus (i.e. according to his will) desired
of him.” ΑἹ ὁ must be understood kara. The diffi-
culty, which perplexes almost all the Commentators,
may be removed, by supposing (with Doddr.) that
κατὰ τὸ θέλημα is to be supplied from the preceding
verse. Or at least the petitions must be supposed κατὰ
τὸ θέλημα (in the sense that has been just explained) ;
for otherwise, the Apostle’s own words teach us,
they will not be patiently heard, much less granted.
Now the above will hold good, whether the petitions
were for ordinary blessings, or extraordinary inter-
positions.
16, 17. ἐὰν τις ἴδη τὸν ἀδελφὸν---θάνατον.

Gomar observes, that from prayer offered up for ourselves St.
John passes to that offered up for others. The passage, however, is
involved in great obscurity. ‘The difficulty chiefly rests with the
phrases ἁμαρτία μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, and ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον, as also
Φωὴν 781 ἴεν. By the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον some understand the
sin against the Holy Ghost. Others, any grievous sin, as idolatry,
homicide, adultery. Others, again, as Schoettg., such a sin as was
held capital in the Mosaic Law. All very improbable. More atten-
tion is due to the interpretation of Carpz.. whom see. As to that
of Rosenm. (also embraced by Morus), though ingenious, it is so
much at variance with the context, and (as Jaspis says) so abhor-
rent from the style of St. John, that it cannot be safely adopted. I,
however, so far agree with Rosenm., that these verses are in some
measure distinct ; since they seem to regard prayer in extraordinary
cases, as the other, ordinary ones. But I cannot assent to the opi-
nion of Bens,, Mackn., and others, that the words are to be inter-
preted of the body, not the soul; and that the Apostle alludes to
those diseases which were inflicted as a punishment for sin, and
which were often healed by the prayer and anointing of the elders
(1 Cor. 11, 30. 12, 9. James 5, 14.), who were endued with a power
of discerning in what cases their gifts of healing should be bestowed;
and whether or not (according to the nature of the offence, or the

780 1 JOHN, CHAP. V.

offender, ) the sin committed was a sin unto death.” The whole
passage is thus paraphrased by Benson: ‘< For instance, if a Chris-
tian, by an impulse of the spirit, perceives that any Christian bro-
- ther has sinned such a sin as to draw down upon himself a disease,
which is not to end in death; but to be miraculously cured by
him; then let him pray to God, and God, in answer to his prayer,
will grant life and perfect health unto such Christians as have
sinned a sin, which is not to end in death. There is a sin which
draws down a disease, upon Christians, that is to end in death. .1
do not say, or mean, that any Christian shall pray for that ; because
in such a. case God would not hear his prayer, nor miraculously
cure his Christian brother at his request. Every unrighteousness is
such a transgression of the divine Jaw, as offends God. But all
sins are not equally heinous and aggravated. And, consequently,
they do not draw down equal punishment upon men. For a
greater sin is unto death, whilst a lesser sin is not unto death.”

᾿Αμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν is thought to be a Hebraism ; but I find it
in Eurip. Hippol. 20. rev" ἡμάρτηκεν eis σ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν;

18. οἴδαμεν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐ
ἁμαρτάνει. Byo yey. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ is meant the (true)
son “of God, in opposition to those who sin unto
death. The expression has been before explained.
‘Apapr. must be understood (as often before) of ha-
bitual and deliberate sin. It may be rendered:
“ς does not practise wickedness.” Τηρεῖ ἑαυτὸν, care-
fully keepeth himself (from such base and unworthy
conduct).” ‘Tyg. is a very strong term. Carpz. refers”
to Hesych. τηρεῖ. φρονεῖ. And he compares Eph. 6, 11.
Rosenm. compares James 1, 27. ἄσπιλον ἐαυτὸν τηρεῖν.
Kal ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ ‘“‘ and so the evil
Being touches him not (so as to hurt him).” The
Commentators are agreed, that by FEBS se is, per
litoten, here meant to hurt and destroy, as Joh. 9,
19., for the Hebr. y33. See more in Elsn., or Bens.
and Slade. ‘The general sentiment is, that the true
Christian does not practise sin; as in a kindred
passage at 3, 9. πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημιένος--- γεγέννηται, where
there is the same repetition of yeyevy., meant to draw
the attention to that point of doctrine.

19. οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐ ἐσμεν. The connection and
sense seems to be this: “ And it is no wonder that we
who are true Christians, should thus keep ourselves
from sin, for we assuredly know that we are of God,
are his children, and that the world at large lieth

eee a υυυθδομι

—_—- μδνδκι

1 JOHN, CHAP. Vv. 781

under the dominion of the evil one.” Hence sin,
though it may be naturally expected from them, were
highly inconsistent in us.” Many, indeed, take τῴ
πονηρῷ as a neuter, though, as Grot. admits, with
allusion to the masculine. But the masculine is re-
quired both by the preceding verse, and the present
one, and it yields the stronger sense. So Pisc.,
Camer, Beza, Zeg., Vorst., Gom., Est., Calvin, Bens.,
ἕο. The phrase κεῖσθαι ἐν may, indeed, be (accord-
ing to Classical use) more agreeable to the neuter
(and Rosenm. cites Eurip. Andr. ἐν κακοῖς κεῖσθαι" and
Seneca, Ep. 59. in vitiis jacuimus) ; yet κεῖσθαι ἐν τινι
sometimes signifies, to lie under the power of, and
be subject to any one. Thus Raphel cites from
Polyb. 6, 6, 13. ἐν τοῦ συγκλήτῳ κεῖται. And other
examples I could myself adduce.

20. οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι---διανοίαν, “ We, moreover, as-
suredly know that the Son of God (the Messiah) is
come, and hath given us this understanding, that we
may know him that is true (i. e. the true God, and
the most acceptable way of obeying and worshipping
him). And indeed we are in union with the true

od, by means of his Son Jesus Christ.” "Hxes, for
ἧκεν. So we say, is come. With respect to the un-
derstanding, that was communicated by the preach-
ing of the Apostles. Τὸν ἀληθινὸν, THE TRUE Being,
Deum Optimum Maximum. So Joh. 17, 5. τὸν μιόνον
ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν. See also 1 Thess. 1, 9. The Θεὸν
added in some MSS. is doubtless from the margin.
In knowledge (the best Commentators are agreed), is
here included worship and obedience. ‘The nature of
the wnion here mentioned has been before explained.
The ἐν in ἐν τῷ υἱῷ is by most rendered zn, as in the
former clause. But the best Commentators from
Grot. to Rosenm. assign to it the sense per. And so
Tyndale. Certainly this sense is more apt: and
Bens. has shown from several examples that ἐν may
have two significations in the same sentence.

20. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ ἡ ϑωὴ αἰώνιος.
This has been, by most Commentators and Theolo-

782 1 JOHN, CHAP. V.

gians antient and modern, considered as a complete
proof of the deity of Christ. That life and eter-
nal life are by the sacred writers perpetually ascribed
to Christ, as the author, is certain; and the words
are no where applied to God the Father. It is by
some, however, thought more agreeable to the con-
text to refer the οὗτός, not to the immediate antece-
dent, but to αὐτοῦ. And so Grot., Clarke, Bens.,
Wets., Rosenm., Schleus., and most recent Inte-
preters. ‘There is supposed to be an elliptical ex-
pression for οὗτὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ (αὐτὴ) ἡ ϑωὴ
αἰώνιος ; (as Joh. 17, 3.) or καὶ (ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ) ἡἡ αἰώνιος.
The former is preferable, and though by Slade ac-
counted not as a natural construction, yet it may be
admitted in such a writer as St. John, where many
constructions are harsh and anomalous. Upon the
whole, no certain determination can be formed on
the sense.

21, φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων, ““ guard
against, and cautiously avoid every kind and degree
of idolatry,”’ whatever partakes of and approaches to
it.” See Bens. "Avy. This is equivalent to, “ I
heartily wish and pray that ye may do so.”

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.

Tue style and sentiments of this Epistle plainly
show it to be St. John’s; and if it was, at first, not
received into the canon, that was from its brevity,
~ and its being addressed only to one family.

Ver. 1. ὁ πρεσβύτερος, This is often a noun of
dignity. Hence some have fancied the writer to be
another John, presbyter of Ephesus, mentioned by
Papias ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3, 29. But πρεσβ.
may very well have the sense διδάσκαλος. It may,

2 JOHN. 783

too, import senior grandevus (sub ᾿Απόστολος); for
John was undoubtedly then the senior Apostle (being
ninety-seven), and long survived all the others.
Thus he might very properly be called ὁ πρεσβύτερος
kar’ ἐξοχὴν. And, as Carpz. observes (from whom
the above is chiefly derived), all churches of Chris-
tians, if they heard any one called ὃ πρεσβύτερος,
although the name of John were not added, yet
would not fail to know that ke was meant. For he
was not only the senior Apostle but most probably
the senior Christian. And that St. John (from his
characteristic modesty) was accustomed to suppress
his name, we find trom his Gospel 13, 19 ἃ 26, 21,
20.”

On the controverted and indeterminable question
concerning the expression ἐκλεκτῇ Κυρίᾳ (of which
four interpretations have been proposed) it may
suffice to refer the reader to Carpz., and especially
Slade, by whom the subject is ably treated. He
seems right in preferring the common interpretation ;
but I cannot agree with him, that the article is im-
proper, which, though it is not in the text, is under-
stood, and ought therefore to be expressed, since it
would have reference to the address or direction
which contained the name. Besides, the very epi-
thet ἐκλ. seems to require it. This is rendered by
Rosenm. carissima. But that is too feeble a sense.
By Mackn., excellent. Possibly (as this seems to
have been a person of some distinction) he thought
the expression equivalent to the common address,
most excellent, and excellency. But that were con-
founding antient and modern phraseology. The
sense seems to be: “to the truly Christian Lady.”
And so many eminent Commentators, as Schleus.
and Bens.

1, ods ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The οὖς may very well
be supposed to refer to both the children and the
mother, or to the latter only. See Slade. Now as
to the ‘children, it will not (as Rosenm observes)
prove that they were all males ; since by τὰ τέκνα at

784 2 JOHN.

1 Pet. 3, 6.'are denoted both sons and daughters.
It will, however, prove that some, probably the
greater number, were males; or if not, as the Apostle
chose to employ a word referring to either gender,
he could not, if there were any males, do otherwise
than use the masculine, as being what grammarians
call the worthier gender.

Ἔν ἀληθείᾳ is an adverbial phrase for ἀληθώς. As
there is no article, it is not well rendered by our
translators in the truth; though immediately after
the Apostle uses ἀληθεία with the article, in the
sense of the Gospel. Such changes are common in
St. John.

2. διὰ τὴν---αἰῶνα. This is closely connected with
the preceding. ‘* We (I say) love you because of
the truth (i. e. the true religion) which remaineth in
us, and will ever remain;” i.e. by hypallage, ‘in
which we continue and will ever continue.”

3. ἔσται---Θεοῦ πατρὸς. Future for optative, by
Hebraism. Χάρις and ἕλεος are used, by metonomy
of the effect for the cause, to denote all the blessings
attendant on the true profession of the Gospel.
And the εἰρήνη παρὰ Θεοῦ πατρὸς is exegetical of the
preceding. See Col. 1, 1. 1 Thess. 1, 1. 2 Thess.
1;:2. -1.-Timisl,y 2: 2 Times 1. 2: Tit. Δ ef By
ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπη, i.e. (as Grot. and Rosenm. ex-
plain) ““ by knowledge of the truth, and mutual
love.” For by these we preserve and increase God’s
benefits.

4. ἐχάρην λίαν ὅτι---ἀληθείᾳ, “41 have rejoiced (or
I do rejoice) greatly, because I have found some of
your children living in (the profession and practice
of) the truth, as we have it revealed to us (through
Jesus Christ) by God the Father.” It is, very pro-
bably, conjectured that these children were some
whom business had brought over to Ephesus, and
whom the Apostle, by conversation and society, had
found in the right path. And this is supported by
a kindred passage at 3 John 3. If such be the case,

ee

2 JOUN. 735

this cannot (as some fancy) glance at other children
who were not so.

5. καὶ viv—ar’ ἀρχῆς. Seea kindred sentiment at
1 Joh. 2,7 & 8. and 10,11 & 16. ’Epwraw, beseech.
"Ar ἀρχῆς, “" from the first promulgation of the
Gospel.” The ἐρωτώ---ἶνα ἀγαπώμεν (which i is said
to be. a delicate mode of expression for ἐρωτώ ἵνα
ἀγάπητε) ought, consistently with our ideas, to be
rendered: ‘ Ἵ beseech thee, let us love each other,
cultivate mutual iove.”

6. καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν 4 ἀγάπη--- αὐτοῦ. The idiom in
αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη, frequently occurs in the first
Epistle and in the Gospel. It has been doubted
whether by ἡ ἀγάπη we are to understand the love
of God, to be shown by keeping his commandments
(as Joh. 14, 15 & 21. 23, 24. 15,10. 1 Joh. 2, 5. 5,
3.), or love towards one another, which God has by
Christ enjoined on us; as Joh. 13, 34 & 35. 15, 12
& 13. Rom. 13, 8,9, & 10. 1 Joh. 3, 23. 4, 21. Bens.
fixes on the latter; but Grot. and Rosemn., the
former; and with reason, since true love of God
includes a love of our neighbour. By the command-
ment from the beginning is meant mutual love. The
Apostle means, “that “this is his commandment,”
which is, therefore, to be obeyed.

7. ὅτι πολλοὶ---σαρκὶ. Carpz. and Rosenm. regard
this verse as the protasis, and the next as the apo-
dosis: and so the ὅτι, they say, may be rendered
because, or be omitted. But I prefer stuipposing a
connection between this and ver. 3., regarding ver.
4—6. as parenthetical; q.d. “(1 rejoiced that you
and your children walked in the truth, and I cannot
but exhort you to continue so to do) "for many de-
ceivers are abroad in the world, who will not allow
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Πλάνοι,
« false teachers.” For εἰσῆλθον some MSS. read ἐξελθ.,
which is confirmed by the first Epistle 2, 19. ᾿Ερχό-
μενον is the participle imperfect. Ἔρχ. ἐν σαρκὶ, 1. 6.
**came with the real human nature,” as opposed to

VOL. VIII. -3E

786 2 JOHN.

a mere phantasm. See the note on 1 Joh. 4, 2 & 8.
On ὁμολ. see the note on 1 Joh. 4, 2.

7. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος, “ That person is the
kind of deceiver I mean.” This change from the
plural to the singular is (Carpz. observes) frequent
in St. Joh. See his examples, and compare 1 Joh.
2,18. 5, 16. Or οὗτος may, as Beza, Glass, and
others think, be for πᾶς τοιοῦτος, “ every such
person.”

8, βλέπετε envrods—amorcBopev. Βλέπω is here,
as often, used for φυλάσσω. See Schl. Lex. It is
rarely found, as here, with an accusative; q. d.
‘‘mind yourselves, take heed to yourselves.” “Ive
μὴ ἀπολέσωμεν--- ἀπολάβωμεν, “that we (your teachers)
lose not what we had laboured for, but that we may
receive our reward.’ The var. lect. ἀπολέσητε ἅ
εἰργάσασθε, is doubtless an emendation. ‘The textual
reading must be retained, as being the more diffi-
cult, and supported by many similar passages of the
New ‘Testament, which represent teachers as receiv-
ing in proportion to the progress of the taught, and
as being dishonoured by any disgrace attending
them. See Bens. It is strange that Carpz. should
recognise a κοίνωσις ; a figure here inapplicable, and
seldom used by St. John, though often by St. Paul.

The μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβωμεν, is very vaguely in-
terpreted by Commentators. It must mean, “ that
reward which we shall receive, if ye continue stead-
fast.” But the πλήρη seems to hint at some reward
which the teacher would receive in the other case;
which indeed were but just, since disciples may
apostatize, and bring diseredit to the master, without
his being to blame. It may therefore (as Mr. Slade
thinks) refer to the joy and satisfaction which they
would naturally derive from the complete suecess of
their labours.

9. πᾶς ὁ παραβαίνων---ἱὸν ἔχει. At παραβαίνων must
be supplied τὴν διδαχὴν. Rosenm. refers to Hebr.
2, 2., where the term is thus used absolutely. And
he might have compared 1 Thess. 4, 8.6 ἀθετών. ‘The

2 JOHN. 787

Apostle alludes to the false teachers above men-
tioned, who’ had corrupted the Gospel, by misre-
presenting the character of Jesus. Μένων ἐν τῇ διδ,,
for ἐμμ. or diay. Θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει, “holds not God in
proper regard.” Thus 1 Thess. 4, 8. ὁ ἀθετών---
ἀθετεῖ τὸν Θεὸν. Now this implies a loss of commu-
nion with him, and favour from him. See the note
on 1 Joh. 2, 23.

10. εἴ τις ἔρχεται---μιὴ λέγετε, “If any (teacher)
come to you, and bring not (i.e. teach not) this
doctrine (namely of Christ), receive him not into
your house, nor say unto him, God speed thee.”
Some Commentators think that this matron whom
the Apostle is addressing, was a Deaconess, and re-
ceived stranger Christians into her house, entertain-
ing them at the expense of the church. But then the
admonition would have been rather suited to the
Presbyters and others who superintended the funds
for such purposes. It seems more probable (as Bens.
supposes) that she was a person of some property
and distinction, who was in the habit of showing
kindness and hospitality to Christian strangers, espe-
cially teachers.

10. χαίρειν αὐτῷ μὴ λέγετε. A form of salutation
expressive of friendly feelings. Butas the receiving
any such teacher into her house, and addressing such
a salutation, could not but imply some degree of
approbation and countenance to his doctrines, so it
is forbidden by the Apostle; though by no means
out of any uncharitable disposition towards such
persons, as men. As to the Jewish custom of not
coming within four cubits of the heretic, here ad-
duced by Lightfoot, &c., it has nothing to do with
the case in question. See Whitby, Bens., and Doddr.,
and also Slade.

11. ὁ yao λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν, κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις
αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς. Here is subjoined the reason,
which is sufficiently plain: for hospitable reception
implies regard and approbation, and would, in some
measure, make any one answerable for the mischief

SER

788 8 JOHN.

such persons might do by means of that counte-
nance. I would compare Eurip. Med. 661. See
Mackn. or Slade.

12. οὐκ ἠβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου kal μέλανος, “41 would
not write (i.e. express my thoughts) by paper and
ink.” This seems a sort of proverbial phrase. The
word χάρτης is the Latin charta Grecized. Rosenm.
observes, that it occurs in Hesych. in v. τόμος, but in
no other Glossary. “Lag. πρὸς ὑμᾶς seems a popular
expression. Drown πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι 15 a prover-
bial one. The Commentators compare a similar one
in Hebr. But, if I am not mistaken, it occurs in the
Classical writers; though I have only noted down
Synes. 169. A. συνεῖναι σοι κατὰ πρόσωπον. Πεπλη-
ρωμένη, complete; as far as it would be so by con-
price rather than by letter. See Mackn. and

ade.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN.

VER. 1. ὁ πρεσβύτερος. See the note on ver. 1. of
the foregoing Epistle. Γαίος is the Roman name
Caius, which was a very common one. See Rosenm.
and Mackn., or Slade. ᾿Ἐν ἀληθείᾳ is for ἀληθώς ; as
2 Joh. 1.

2. περὶ πάντων---ψυχή, “ above all things I heartily
wish and pray that thou mayest be prospered, and
enjoy health of body, even as thy soul prospereth.”
The περὶ may he construed either with εὔχομαι, or
with edod. In the former case it will be for ὕπερ,
“above all things ;” in the latter, for ἐν πᾶσιν, 1. 6.
all things regarding the eternal state, especially
health, the principal one, which is here mentioned.
But the former seems the more natural mode of

3 JOHN. 789

interpretation; and it is adopted by Schleus., to
whose examples I add Pind. Ol. 6, 84. περὶ θνητών,
ante omnes mortales. Evodovcbas properly signifies
“to be set well forward on one’s way;” 2. “to go
in one’s way aright ;” 3. “ to be prosperous ;” as here
and Rom. 1, 10. εἴπως πότε εὐοδωθήσομιαι, where see
the note. Rosenm. explains as if the Apostle were
only wishing Caius the ‘‘ mens sana in corpore sano:”
a sort of sentiment more suited to a Heathen philo-
sopher than a Christian Apostle. This mens sana
may be very consistent with an utter neglect of the
soul, and our immortal interests.

8. ἐχάρην γὰρ λίαν---περιπατεῖς. The use of the
genitive absolute in this sense (i. e. when thy brethren
came) is unusual. Μαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθεῖᾳ, is a
brief and popular phrase for, ‘‘ bearing testimony
that thou walkest fn the truth.’ The words follow-
ing are exegetical, and καθὼς simply signifies ὅτι,
namely, that. So our old English as how. Compare
a parallel passage in 2 Joh. 4.

4. μειϑοτέραν τοὐτων---περιπατοῦντα. ‘The τούτων,
scil. πραγμάτων, is for τούτου͵ The ἵνα, Rosenm.
says, if for? ἵνα. But for the ἢ there is no occasion.
Otherwise it is omitted in the best writers. ‘Texve,
spiritual children, disciples. See 1 Tim. 1, 2 & 18.
2 Tim. 2, 2. Μὲειβοτέραν is a provincial form for
μείϑονα. Rosenm. compares with it χειριστοτέρη in
Hippocr. and ἐσχατώτεραν in Aristotle. But those
forms are of a different nature.

5, 6. πιστὸν ποιεῖς, sub. ἔργον. By mor. is meant
“an action worthy of the faith,” i. 6. the Gospel.
Wets. adduces an example of ποιεῖν πιστὰ. But that
is in another sense. Rosenm., more aptly, compares
Liban.: οὐχ Ἡλληνικὴν τοῦτο ποιεῖς, “ worthy of a
Grecian.” Schleus. classes this passage with Tit.
1, 6. τέκνα ἔχων mista. The ἐὰν is for av. In καὶ
τοὺς ξένους, the καὶ signifies even. The var. lect. καὶ
ταῦτα εἰς ξένους, is doubtless ex emendatione. Now
other Christians might show hospitality to those
brethren whom they knew, (for we are not consider-

790 3 JOHN.

ing public hospitality shown by the Deacons to all
Christians) ; but Caius showed it to those who were
strangers to him.

6. οἱ ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπη ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας.
These words are parenthetical. By ἐκκλησ. the
Commentators understand the £phesian church.
But it may designate the church Catholic. Ouvs
καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ, 1. 6. literally,
‘‘whom sending forward, and helping on their way,
thou wilt do well, and worthy of God.” On προ-
πέμπω I have before treated. See Tit. 3, 1. ᾿Αξίως
τοῦ Θεοῦ. This is obscurely rendered by our trans-
lators, “after a godly sort.” Better by Pisc. and
Rosenm., “as becomes those who serve God, and
agreeably to our duty to Him to whom we owe every
thing.” See Col. 1, 10. 1 Thess. 2. 12.

7. ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον, pydev λαμβάνοντες
ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “ For, for the sake of his name, or
religion, they went forth, taking nothing from the
Gentiles.” Some MSS. after ὀνόματος add αὐτοῦ,
which, at all events, must be supplied: for it seems
harsh to take ὀνομ. for Christ, i. e. the Christian re-
ligion; as does Rosenm. ‘The construction which
some lay down, ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν, is extremely
harsh, and the sense thence arising unauthorized and
not agreeable to the context. According to the
common mode of interpretation, as Bens. observes
(whom see), there is a close connection with the
verse following. And this “taking nothing” from
their Gentile converts, was agreeable to the custom
of St. Paul. The whole is well rendered by our
translators. ἜΕδῆλθον is used absolutely. We are to
understand not so much, “ from among Christians
(with many Commentators),” as, ‘from their homes
and their business.” ᾿Λαμβάνοντες is for ἀπολαμβ.

8. ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν---ἀληθείᾳ, The we does not
(I conceive) denote (as Benson thinks) Jewish Chris-
tians, but Christians in general, meaning such as are
in stated abodes. ᾿Απολαμβ. is for ὑπολαμβ., “ re-
ceive with hospitality.” And so some MSS.; but

el pees

3 JOHN. 791

perhaps ex emendatione. Ἵνα συνεργοὶ y. τ. a., “ that
we may co-operate with those that propagate the
truth (i.e. the Gospel), by furthering it all in our
power.” So in 2 Cor. 1, 25., we have συνέργοι εἶναι
τῆς χαρᾶς.

9. ἔγραψα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, i.e. to the church to which
Caius belonged. The ἔγραψα is well rendered, by
Benson and others, “1 had written ;” which is pre-
ferable to reading ἔγραψα av, I would have written,
which requires a harsh subaudition. The subject of
the writing is supposed to have been to recommend
the brethren above-mentioned to the Gentiles. But
without knowledge of the circumstances no certainty
can be attained. ‘O φιλοπρ. αὐτών is for αὐτῆς, by
the figure πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον ; ἐκκλησίας being a
noun of multitude. Whether this Diotrephes was a
Presbyter, or a Deacon, is not known. ‘The former
is the more probable. As to the conjectures re-
‘ specting him, they are founded on no evidence, and
merit littleattention. Οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται jas. By ἡμᾶς
is, of course, meant me John: but whether it signi-
fies ‘‘ my person,” or my Apostolical office, or my ad-
monitions and recommendations, Commentators are
not agreed. It must chiefly refer to his office, but,
in a secondary sense, to his admonitions. Οὐκ ἀπο-
δέχεσθαι τινα seems to have been a proverbial expres-
sion ; signifying ‘‘ to have nothing to do with a per-
son,” meaning that we reject his interference. It is
probable that Diotrephes, as Presbyter, refused to
receive the letter, thereby declining to receive St.
John’s directions, or recognize his Apostolical autho-
rity. Thus there is every reason to suppose him to
have been one of the false teachers.

10. ὑπομνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ, A. 7. ᾧ. ἡ.
Ὑπομιμνήσκειν properly signifies only to remember :
but it is often used by those who modestly suppress
part of their meaning, to denote ‘‘ remember to do
any thing, whether good or evil.” So Luke 23, 42.
* remember me, when thou comest into thy king-
dom,” and Gal. 2, 10. “ remember the poor.” See

792 3 JOHN.

also Heb. 13,3 & 7. We have the very same idiom;
too, in our own language. ‘Thus here the sense is:
“1 will remember (to reprove and punish his pre-
sumption and irregularity).’’ So Carpzoy explains;
comparing 2 Cor. 13, 2. ἐὰν ἔλθω οὐ φείσομαι. This
is greatly preferable to rendering it admonish, with
Grot. and Rosenm.; a mode of interpretation which
seems to have been adopted, to elude the objection
that remembrance of injuries was unworthy of an
Apostle: but Whitby has completely overturned
that cavil.

10. λόγοις πονηροῖς φλυαρών ἡμᾶς. Prvagéw is pro-
perly a verb nenter, signifying to blow bubbles, trifle,
and also to chatter, prate: and as by Gavagos are
denoted praters in 1 Tim. 5, 13., so it is justly
thought that Φλυαρέω here signifies to chatter against,
i.e. to calumniate any one by false and vain words.

The οὔτε---καὶ may seem harsh (though the Com-
mentators notice it not); but it may be observed
that it often occurs in Thucyd. I would write οὐ re
—kal. Onthe καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει it is no
easy matter to determine whether there be here
meant those that received the strangers, or the stran-
gers themselves. The former is certainly more
agreeable to the common rules of construction ; yet
as ἐκβ. ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, if so applied, can signify
nothing short of excommunication, which we can
hardly suppose even Diotrephes would denounce
against those who received Christian strangers, I am
strongly inclined to adopt the Jatter interpretation,
which is supported by Heumann, Carpzov, Rosenm.,
Jaspis, and other recent Commentators, viz. to reject
them, not receive them as Christians into the society
of Christians there, and, by denying them any sup-
port, thus compel them to depart and go elsewhere:
It would, moreover (though the Commentators have
not observed it), much clear the sense, if the words
καὶ τοὺς βουλομένους κωλύει were put into a paren-
thesis. And the καὶ may be rendered imo. Thus
no objection will remain to this interpretation.

8 JOHN. 793

11. μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ; q.d. ““ imi-
tate not the evil example of Diotrephes, but the good
one of the others. ‘O ἀγαθοποιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν" ὃ
δὲ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακε τὸν Θεὸν. The Apostle now
changes the special admonition into a general one.
The sense is: ‘‘ He who practises what is good is (a
son) of God; he who practises any sort of evil, doth
not (really) know God or religion, because by his
actions he shows he is not sensible of his obligations
to virtue.” On the import of the phrases see 1 Joh.
2, 29. 3, 6. I would observe that there is a re-
markable var. lect. (which has escaped all the Com-
mentators) to be found in Gregor. Corinth. in Her-
mog. p. 904. med. (Orat. Graec. Reisk 8.) τέκνια, ras
ἀγαθοποιὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ὃ δὲ κακοποῖος οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν
ἐστιν. Anda little after he adds: διὰ τὸ λυπηρὸν τοῖς
ἀκούουσιν, οὐκ εἶπε σαφῶς, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ
ἔδωκε αὐτὸ τοῖς βουλόμενοις ἔξωθεν νοεῖν.

10. Δημήτριος μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων, καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς
τῆς ἀληθείας. ‘This Demetrius is thought to have
been one of the principal of those whom St. John
had recommended to Caius. Μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάᾶν-
των, “ has a testimony (for good) borne to him by all
(who know him).” In this absolute sense pagr. fre-
quently occurs. So Acts 16, 2. ὃς ἐμαρτυρεῖτο ὑπὸ
τών ἐν Λύστροις, Χο. See also the note on Heb. 11, 2,
Καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀληθείας. An acuté dictum, which
must not be pressed upon. ‘The τῆς αὐτῆς ἀληθείας
is well explained, by Carpzov, re ipsd. So Rosenm. :
« Non hominum tantum, sed et veritatis ipsius testi-
monio ornatur: non solum dicitur esse, sed et est
bonus.” And he might have cited the Atschylean
Οὐ δοκεῖν ἀριστὸς, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι θέλει.

12. μαρτυροῦμεν, 561]. αὐτῷ. Some interpret : ‘*We
and the others of the Church at Ephesus.” But it is
sufficient, to understand the Apostle. The next
words καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστι are
aptly compared with Joh. 19, 35., &c.; and it is
hence (as well as from other passages) satisfactorily
proved that St. John was the author of the Epistle.

794 8 JOHN.

13, 14. See the note on a kindred passage at 2
Joh. 12, 15., Εἰρήνη oo. A Hebrew form of ad-
dress. So A rcoysw. Οἱ φίλοι. Mackn. explains,
the Christians. And he observes that this is the only
example of the appellation found in Scripture. But
I should doubt even this one. The article seems to
stand for the pronoun: ‘ your friends (and mine)
salute thee.”? Τοὺς φίλους must mean “ our friends.”
All these were doubtless Christians.

" 795

THE

GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE.

CHAP. I.

VERSE 1. δοῦλος--Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. This appella-
tion is not inconsistent with Apostleship: for St.
Paul sometimes uses the δοῦλος by itself, (and so
James 1, 1.); at other times, in conjunction with
amoor.; aS Phil.1,1. ᾿Αδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου. He makes
mention of James, his brother, as being well known,
and of great influence among the Jewish Christians.
(Rosenm.) Tots ἐν Θεῷ ---κλητοῖς, By the κλητοὶ are
meant Christians. And the ἐν Θεῴ πατρὶ ἡγιασμένοι
are what St. Paul, at 1 Cor. 1, 2. calls ἡγιασμένοι ἐν
Xp. "I. The var. lect. qyer. seems to be a gloss.
Now the term 7y. being so general, proves that it
was addressed to Christians of every kind. See
Mackn. and Slade.

2. ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη Kal ἀγάπη πληθυνθείη, “ May
mercy, and peace, and love abundantly be your por-
tion.” Now ἔλεος and εἰρήνη (which denote mercy
and acceptance from God, and peace with him) are
mentioned as being the choicest of spiritual bless-
ings; and ἀγάπη, or mutual love, which is the very
bond of peace, as being the most promotive of tem-
poral happiness. On πληῦ. see 1 Pet. 1, 2.

8. ἀγαπητοὶ, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμιενος----ἁγίοις πίστει,
** Brethren, when I thus made it my earnest busi-
ness to write unto you concerning the common sal-
vation, I thought it needful to insert an exhortation
that you should zealously strive for the preservation
of the faith which has been, once for all, delivered

796 JUDE. .

to the saints.” The expression πᾶσαν σπουδὴν π΄. is a
very strong one. Of itself σπουδὴν ποιεῖσθαι (not
ποιεῖν, aS Rosenm. has it) signifies to use all one’s di-
ligence. It is nearly equivalent to σπουδάϑειν. One
may compare the σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισφέρειν of 2 Pet.
1,10. On περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας Pric. and Wets.
adduce several passages. ‘The most apposite is 2
Macc. 9, 21. ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμιην φροντίσαι τῆς κοινῆς
πάντων ἀσφαλείας. -In the rest of the passages σω-
τηρία denotes temporal preservation; while here it
signifies eternal salvation, or the means of attaining
it, namely, the Christian religion. See the note on
Philem. 5. ᾿Αναγκαῖον ἔσχον, necesse duxi, savours of
Latinism. “Exaywvigerbar τ΄ πίστει, 1. 6. ἀγονίϑεσθαι
ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. An agonistical metaphor. So Sir. 4,
28. ἀγώνισαι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας. The sense here is,
to earnestly strive for the preservation of the true
faith, in opposition to false doctrines. The ἅπαξ is,
by most Commentators, rendered olim, i.e. at the
beginning of the Gospel. And so Carpz. and Hanl.
compares Philo T. 2, 387. τοῖς ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσι.
Others, as Schleus., explain it omnino, perfecte. But
this seems not so proper a.sense as the former.
There may, however, be also an allusion to the doc-
trine being propounded once for all, and admitting of
no change.

4, παρεισέδυσαν---ἀσεβεῖς. The Apostle now as-
signs the reason why such care was necessary to pre~
serve the purity of the faith. Παρεισέδυσαν. Παρὰ,
which properly signifies by, has here the sense of by
the by, covertly. See Elsner, Krebs, Kypke, and
especially Wets. The words ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προ-
γεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα are regarded by Pric.
and Bens. as parenthetical, and exegetical. But it is
too violent to separate τινες from ἄνθρωποι ; nor is it
necessary, since the sense arising is much the same.
The οἱ πάλαι wp. ἐ. τ. τ. κι is rendered by Bens.,
‘© and who were long ago described as persons who
should come under this condemnation.” By Ro-
senm.: “ men on whom God long decreed this pu-

JUDE. 797

nishment.” Κρῖμα for κατάκριμα, condemnation, which
involves the sense of punishment. The προγεγ. is
thought, by Rosenm., to allude to the custom of
judges putting certain persons on a list for execu-
tion ; and it signifies (he adds), in a general way, to
proscribe. He compares 2 Pet. 2, 3. οἷς τὸ κρῖμα
ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, &c. The τοῦτο, he thinks, is for
poly, παραπλήσιον. Rather, (1 would say,) for τοιοῦτο.
There is, no doubt, reference to the examples fol-
lowing in ver. 5—7. It is meant that the punish-
ment which formerly befel the Israelites, or the rebel
angels, or Sodom, such a punishment awaits them.

4. τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσελγείαν,
“who turn the gracious dispensation of the Gospel
(meant to encourage virtue and exertion, and pro-
mote holiness) into an occasion for lasciviousness.’’
Compare 1 Pet. 2, 16. For examples of this sense
of grace Benson refers to 1 Pet. 2, 16. Acts 13, 43.
2 Cor. 6,1. Tit. 2,11. Heb. 12,15. Now the ori-
ginal intention (says he) of the grace of God in the
Gospel, was to promote all manner of purity or holi-
ness. Luke 1,74 & 75. Rom. 2, 3., &c. Eph. 1, 4:
& 2,10. 1 Thess. 4, 7. Tit. 2,11 & 12. 1 Joh. 1, 7.
But, because God was merciful to the penitent, they
represented his mercy as boundless, and equally ex-
tended unto those who wallowed in lewdness and all
manner of vice.” Μετατίθεσθαι signifies to change,
to alter a thing from its original purpose. ‘Thus here
it denotes the abusing religion to lasciviousness. So
Apulej., cited by Pric. (speaking of a Christian
woman); *“ Mentita sacrilegia presumptione Dei
quem predicaret unicum, matutino mero, et con-
tinuo stupro corpus manciparat.” It is observed by
Rosenm., that the false teachers against whom Jude
inveighs were the same with those so strongly cen-
sured by Peter and John.

4. καὶ τὸν μιόνον----ἀρνούμιενοι. Rosenm. compares 2
Joh. 7. Tit. 1,16. 2 Pet. 2, 1. and the notes. He
also observes that ἀρνεῖσθαι here comprehends both
deeds and words. See more in Slade.

798 JUDE.

5. ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ
τοῦτο. Ποῖ has been much debate on the signifi-
cation of ἅπαξ, which is variously interpreted. So 1:16
refer it to εἰδότας, and render it omnino. Others,
take it to belong to the δεύτερον following, in the
sense, that God once indeed led his people from
Egypt, but afterwards destroyed the unbelieving.
Thus the τὸ δεύτερον, which just after follows, will not
be without its antitheton. Tinally, the words ἅπαξ
τοῦτο may be connected with ὑπομνῆσαι, thus: vrop-
νῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι ἅπαξ τοῦτο, καιπὲρ εἰδότας UUdsS.
(Rosenm.) ‘They may be rendered: “I recall to
your remembrance what you have once heard.”
“Απαξ does not signify primd vice ; nor is it opposed
to δεύτερον, secundd vice: but δεύτερον signifies postea,
deinceps ; and ἅπαξ is to be rendered jampridem,
dudum, and is to be referred to εἰδότας. From
your earliest years these histories have been known
to you; now recall them again to your remem-
brance.” (Carpz.) The τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας Grot.
takes for ἀπειθήσαντας ; since those that obey not,
show that they do not believe as they ought. So in
Hebr. 4, 2., the word is said not to have been mixed
with faith, &c. And, as Whitby says, unbelief was
the cause of their apostacy and all their sins. ‘ ‘This
destruction (says Rosenm.) was effected in various
ways; by serpents, by diseases, by the Angel, by
the hands of the Levites, &c. Now it is hinted, that
God will also give up to destruction those who,
after professing the Christian faith, deny their Lord
Jesus Christ.”

6. ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτών ἀρχὴν.

On the sense of τὴν ἀρχὴν there is some doubt. Some, as Grot.,
Beza, and most early Commentators, explain, “ their first state.”
Others, as Menoch., Bens., and, of the recent Commentators,
Schleus. and Laurman., and especially Carpz., take it to mean their
original dignity; i.e. ‘‘ who preserved not their prerogatives as
sons of God, and the original excellence with which they were
created, the truth and holiness created with them.” And so Cyril,
cited by Carpz. For examples of this signification in the Classical

writers, Schleus. refers to Irmisch on Herodian 2, 3, 9.
The ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον is explained by Grot. and

JUDE. τ ἘΝ

Rosenm., “ left their proper habitation, heaven, and descended to
the infernal regions." Laurman supposes a metaphor taken from
fugitive slaves, who, absconding from their home, had afterwards
assigned to them a much worse habitation. Bens. and Schleus.
render the oixr., ‘* their proper situation (proudly aspiring to a
higher).” Thus the words will be exegetical of the preceding. And
this, seems, upon the whole, the best mode of interpreting them.
The oixr., Laurman observes, is a rare word. He refers to a passage
of Plut., to which I add Joseph. 199, 7.

6. eis κρίσιν---τετήρηκεν, “ he hath reserved in chains of darkness
against the judgment of the great day.” Compare a kindred passage
of 2 Pet., 2,4., where see the note. Τηρεῖσθαι is used for φυλάττεσ-
θαι, Acts 25, 21. Τὴ κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας signifies the judgment,
condemnation, and punishment of the great day. For eis ἡμέραν
κρίσεως, 2 Pet., 2, 9., 3,7., 1 Joh. 4, 17. This seems not so much
an hypallage (which Rosenm. calls it) as a blending of two synony-
mous phrases, eis ἡμέραν κρισέως, and eis μεγάλην ἡμέραν. On
the δεσμοὶ and ais. it is needless to speculate. ὑπὸ Φόφον see Bens.
and Rosenm. I would here compare Soph. Antig. 948,

Hanlei#thinks the story derived from the Apocryphal Books, and
Jewish ‘Mythology, and neither confirmed, nor rejected by the
Apostle, who only makes use of the circumstances of the story as
examples to show the Jews the miserable consequences of error and
vice. But to this I must demur, as there is something unsound in
the principle. And I shall here adduce the words of a profounder
Theologian and an abler Scholar, Laurm. ad ἢ. 1. p. 49., ““ Admit-
tendi mythi nullam video rationem; sed historiam arbitror veré
gestam, nobis omnino incognitam. Unde tante tenebrze, haud
facile discutiende, ob historiz, priscz antiquitatis, inscitiam.” He
refers to C, Olear. Diss, de angelis desertoribus et captivis, ap. Thes.
Nov. P. 2. p. 1008.

7. ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Τόμοῤῥα---ἐκπορνεύσασαι. The ai
περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις are the cities or towns circum circa,
like the περιοίκοι of the Greeks (See Gen. 19, 25.
Sept.), namely, Adama, Zeborm, and Zoar, which
were subject to, and in the vicinity of, Sodom and
Gomorrha, and participated in their vices. These
shared in their punishment, except Zoar, which was
spared at Lot’s entreaty. The towns, it may be ob-
served, are put (as often) for the znhabitants. ‘The
ἐκ in éxmogy. is (as often) intensive. The verb itself
is used in the Sept. At τρόπον must be understood
κατὰ. See Schleus. Lex. The τούτοις is by some
referred to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha:
by -others, to the false teachers in question; by

others again, to the angels above mentioned, The

800 JUDE.

Jjirst mode of interpretation seems to deserve the
preference; and we may here suppose the figure
προς τὸ σημαινόμενον. So Blackw. and Laurman.
The words ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας are exeyeti-
cal of the rerogy. ‘This expression, on which Com-
mentators needlessly enlarge, is an euphemism,
denoting adultery, sodomy, and other abominations,
for which those cities were infamous. The use here
of ἀπέρχεσθαι seems to have been idiotical, like our
popular use of the expression go after.

Now, of these it is further said, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα,
1. 6. ὡς παράδειγμα, OF ὑποδείγμα, 1. 6. to succeeding
ages (So 3 Macc., cited by Rosenm.): σὺ---σοδομίτας
πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ κατέφλεξας, παράδειγμα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις
καταστήσας ; or, as in 2 Pet., 2,6., τῶν μελλόντων
ἀσεβεῖν. There (1 would observe) ἕνεκα 18 under-
stood ; and τών pear. do. is put for πᾶσι τοῖς μέλλουσι
ἀσεβεῖν. Δίκην ὑπέχειν is a common phrase denoting
to suffer punishment. On the πῦρ αἰώνιον Commen-
tators (I think) refine too much. Bens. explains it,
a fire which burnt till it utterly consumed them. See
Whitby. It is not necessary to press on the αἰώνιον,
We need only suppose that the Apostle’s meaning
is: “they are publicly set forth (xpox., which is a fo-
rensic term) for an everlasting example (in their
fiery destruction) of the punishment God sometimes
inflicts for sin in this world, and which is but a faint
type of that which he hath reserved for the next.”
See Wells.

8. ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαϑόμιενοι, “ In like
manner (notwithstanding such awful examples of
punishment are held out), these dreamers defile the
flesh (with lewdness), set at nought government, and
revile dignities.” The antients, and most Commen-
tators, from Erasm. downwards, fancy, in the evuz.
an allusion to the obscene dreams of those vicious
persons. But I agree with others, as Beza, Grot.,
Heins., Wolf, Pricaeus, and the best Commentators,
since their time, that the term here signifies stulta
imaginari. It alludes (they think) to the dreaming

Se ee ὙΝ

JUDE. 501

idle fancies of the false teachers, of whom Apulej.
(cited by Pric.) says, vigilantes somniant. See Bur-
net ap. Johns. D. 17. And so in Cowper’s Task.
Bens. ap. Slade explains: ‘‘ dreaming idle dreams,
turning the grace of God into licentiousness, and
promising themselves and their disciples security and
lasting happiness in those courses, which the Gospel
condemns.” Carpz. and Rosenm. think there is an
allusion to the lethargy of obdurate vice.

The κυριοτ. (as the best Commentators are agreed)
denotes, not angels, but human governors. This
term, like the Latin potestas, is used for the persons
exercising the dominion. So the Italian podesta, a
governor. ᾿Αθετεῖν, literally, signifies in nullo loco
habere, to set at nought. So 2 Pet. 2, 11., karadpo-
νεῖν. The verb is used by Polyb., Diod. Sic., and
Josephus, cited by Schleus., Lex. The σάρκα μιαίνου-
σι alludes to fornication, adultery, and sodomy.

The δόξας is by some (even Schleus.) interpreted of
angels. But Grot., and most other Interpreters, take
it to denote the higher magistrates, as xvpior., the
lower. Laurman, however, thinks them synony-
mous. This term (like the κυρ. before) is put for the
persons bearing the office.

9. ὁ δὲ Μιχαήλ---ἸΚ ύριος.

Slade traces the connection thus: “ The Gnostics imitate the
fallen angels in their rebellious speeches and conduct; the arch-
angel will afford them a better example, who, even under the great-
est provocation, refused to pronounce a harsh sentence of condemna-
tion against a fallen spirit.” On the arch-angel Michael see Mackn.
and others, and especially Laurman. Rosenm, thinks the Apostle
derived the story from an Apocryphal book entitled ἀνάβασις τοῦ
Μωσέως, mentioned by Origen. Qicumen. (cited by Rosenm.) gives
the story thus: Λέγεται, τὸν Μιχαὴλ τὸν ἀρχάγγελον τῇ τοῦ Μωῦ-
σέως ταφῇ διηκονηκέναι: Τοῦ δὲ διαβόλου τοῦτο μὴ καταδεχομένου,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιφέροντος ἔγκλημα διὰ τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αιγυπτίου φόνον, ws διὰ τοῦτο
ἐνόχου ὄντος Mwicéws, καὶ μὴ συγχωρεῖσθαι τυχεῖν τῆς ἔντιμου τα-
φῆς, &c. which is the best commentary on this passage.

Διακρένεσθαι τινι signifies to have a law-suit with, or, in a ge-
neral way, to havea dispute with. Οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, non sustinuit, in
animum induxit, could not bring himself. So Theogn. 369. (cited
by Laurm.) See Schleus. Lex. Wassenburg ap. Laurm. para-
phrases thus: “‘ non ausus est ea que Dei erant, sibi arrogare,
quanquam Archangelus.” Kpiow βλασφημίας is for κρισ, βλάσφη-

VOL. VIII. | 3 F

802 JUDE.

μον, Which occurs in 2 Peter 2, 11. ᾿Επέφερειν i3 a forensic term.
Rosenm. thus states the argument: “1 Michael scrupled to revile
the Devil (an exalted angel the worst of demons), who himself,
though impious, had received from God some power in the world,
how can we excuse those who do not hesitate to revile human ma-
gistrates, nay even good angels.” It is well observed by Doddr.,
that the argument rises from the detestable character of the devil ;
q d. “ΤΕ the angel did not rail even against the devil, how much
less ought we against men in authority, even supposing them in
some things to behave amiss.” Yo do it therefore when they behave
well, must be an offence yet much more aggravated.

9. Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι Κύριος. The words are derived from Zach. 3,
2., but differently applied. ᾿Ἐπιτιμᾷν carries with it (as often) a
notion of punishment as well as rebuke.

On this story Rosenm. refers to a Dissertation on the verse in
Pott's Syllog. Comment. 6, 170. seq. from which he makes an ex-
tract. But the more sound and judicious of my readers will prefer
the following from the very learned and able Commentary on this
Epistle by Laurman, which is a treasure of information on every
point connected with it: “ Judas historiam narrat, non mythum
vid. locum de fonte doctrine Jude. At ignoramus quam narrat
historiam, et quo fonte petitam: et quod rei difficultatem auget,
non omnem historiam narrat, at ex historid quippe tum temporis
bene cognité fragmentum tantum delibavit.” Finally, ] agree with
Mr. Slade, that it is difficult to believe an inspired Apostle would
enforce or recommend his doctrine by a mere fable; and besides, he
evidently mentions it not asa fable, but a fact ; and the converts, at
least, would conclude that he was persuaded of its truth.

10. οὗτοι de, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ οἴδασι, βκασφημοῦσιν. Com-
pare 2 Pet. 2,12. By the things they do not under-
stand (i. e. the purpose and use of) are (as the best
Commentators think) meant laws and magistracies.
Schleus. and Laurman, however, explain: que ne-
queunt facere, scil. ex virium tenuitate. Ae, immo
vero, whereas. "Oca δὲ φυσικῶς---φθείρονται, ‘but by
those things which by natural instinct they know
and feel, by those they corrupt themselves.” Φυσικώς,
‘“by the natural instincts, the impulses of appetite
and passion, and sensual pleasure;” partly such as
is adverted to in the σάρκα μιαιν. 5 and partly of glut-
tony, ascribed to them by the ἑαυτὸν ποιμαίνοντας at ver,
12. Φθείρονται, “abuse to their own injury.” Passive
for reciprocal. (Rosenm., partly from Grot.) Thus
they abused the instinctive knowledge they pos-
sessed, to the destruction both of body and soul.

11. Hic non poenam enarrat, sed vitia enumerat.

JUDE. 803

(Laurm.) Comparatione instituta cum tribus impro-
bis, Caino, Balaamo, et Cora, qui in sacra scriptura
pessimeé audiunt, falsis fratribus creat invidiam. Ipsa
tamen facinorum, qua commiserunt, convenientia
non nimis est urgenda. (Wassenb. ap. Laurm.)

11. οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς. Non imprecatur, sed denunciat ex-
itium. (Carpz.) ἹἸΠορεύεσϑαι ὁδῷ τινος signifies to fol-
low any one’s example. The points of resemblance
are: 1. Hatred and persecution of the brethren, that
disposition of mind which tends to murder. Thus
every such person is in 1 Joh. 3, 15. called a mur-
derer. (See the note there.) 2. Avarice. 3. Pride.

11. καὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν,
“ἼΤΊΘΥ impetuously rush upon the sin committed
by Balaam for the lucre of gain ;” i. 6. as he excited
the people to whoredom with the Moabites, so they,
through love of lucre, encourage Christians in carnal
lusts. See Apoc. 2, 14 and 13. The ey. is a
strong term; and (as Laurman says) there is a meta-
phor derived from a river which breaks its banks, and
inundates the country round. See Elsn., Kypke, &c.
Laurm. cites Test. 12 Patr. ap. Grab. Spicileg. 1, 45,
τοῦ μὴ πορευθῆναι ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ νεότητος καὶ πορνείᾳ, ἐν 7 ἐξε-
χύθην ἐγὼ. See Gen. 49, 4."

11. καὶ τῇ ἀντιλογια τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο, i. 6. (as
Rosenm. explains) καὶ ὡς ὁ Κορὲ ἀντιλέξας ἀπώλοντο.
The ἀπώλοντο Rosenm. takes as aorist for future, or
present. The latter method is greatly preferable.
He adds: “ As that sedition was against Moses, so
was this against Christ and his religion.” In a simi-
lar way ἀντιλογία is used in the Protevang. Jacobi c.
9. (cited by Laurm.) As examples of this spirit
Carpz. refers to 3 Joh. 9. and 1 Cor. 1, 11. And he
observes that these three, the ἐπορεύθησαν, ἐξεχύθη-
σαν, and ἀπώλοντο, are used gradatim of a single life,
and the perdition it brings with it.

12. οὗτοί εἰσιν--σπιλάδες. Οὐὖτοι, Laurm. remarks,
is often used by St. Peter of those wretches whose
crimes are so graphically depicted by himself and St.
Jude, the latter of whom here presents an admirable

3F2

804 JUDE.

delineation, derived from things most obvious in na-
ture, and which strikingly evinces his learning, taste,
and power of eloquence.

“These wretches (says the Apostle) are spots and a disgrace to
your love-feasts, when they feast with you to an excess which shows
no reverence to God or regard to man.” By the ayaz., Agape, are
meant those sacred meals which at first, among the primitive Chris-
tians, preceded the Eucharist, and afterwards succeeded it, and to
which all, especially the richer, furnished their contributions. Now
these were at first frugal and sober, but became in process of time
more luxurious ; and the poor were generally excluded, while the
rich, without restraint, gratified their appetites; until inthe fourth
century the custom was solemnly abolished by the counsel of Lao-
dicea. These love-feasts, it may be observed, somewhat resembled
the ἐράνοι of the Greeks ; a term similarly derived from épaw. See
Athen, 862 Ε. and Lennep. Etym. Gree. inv. On feasts in general
there is an apposite passage in Athen, 363 Ὁ.

Σπιλάδες. This word is often used in the Classical writers of
denote rough and sharp rocks, partly jutting out of the sea, and
concealed by it, around which breakers arise. Hence many emi-
“nent recent Commentators recognise an allusion to these false
teachers who, like such rocks, are pernicious to those who meet with
them ; shipwreck the faith, and corrupt the morals of those who
hold intercourse with them. So Laurm., who adduces similar ex-
pressions from Cicero. See also Wets. Such may possibly be the
sense; but there seems something so incongruous in the figure,
that I am inclined to retain the common interpretation, spots, in
the same sense as the σπῖλοι at 2 Pet.; especially as 1 am sup-
ported by such eminent critics as Beza, Grot., Hemsterh., Bens.,
Scheid, and Wassenburg. And this conveys a far more consistent
and apposite sense.

As to the argument derived from the difference of the twe forms
σπῖλος and σπίλας, that seems frivolous, as it regards St. Jude. The
gloss of Hesych., which represents the antient opinion, is strongly
in its favour. And so the Vulg. macule, And that the words some-
times (as Laurm. shows ) interchange senses, rather countenances
the common interpretation, which is, moreover, confirmed by the
general idea which prevails in these two words, and many cognate
ones, Σπίω is (I suspect) cognate with the Latin spuo, and our
spi-t, and sputt-er, and spot; hence spi-got. Nay, even σπι-νγθὴρ
comes from ozt-w or origw, to spurt or sprinkle. Thus the leading
sense is to spié. Now a spot is properly something spié out, and
which stands out as a stain on any thing. And what are such rocks
as those here meant but spots on the sea? for such they appear at a
distance ; and why they should be so called, it were as needless to
enquire, as why rocks should be called χοιράδες. Fancy must have
scope in either case.

Συνευωχούμενοι, ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες. Pric. and Rosenm.
connect the συνευωχούμενοι ὑμῖν, not with the preceding, but with

JUDE. 805

the following: and for ποιμαίνοντες they read ποιμαίνουσι, or take
it fora participle. But there is no necessity for any change in the
punctuation and construction; and for a change in reading, no au-
thority. The common reading and interpretation is preferable : and
συνευωχ. and ποιμαίνοντες are each a Nominativus pendens. The
ἀφόβως most refer to the former; but others, with more reason, to
the latter. There is, too, aclimax. It seems to mean, ‘‘ with no fear
or care but for themselves, with none for their fellows, or for the
poor.” The ἑαυτοὺς isemphatical. 030s here signifies anxious care.

Νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι, ὑπὸ ἀνέμων περιφερόμεναι. See the note on
2 Pet. 3, 17. And consult Pric. in loc. ‘* These waterless clouds
(says Rosenm.) are fit emblems of the false teachers, who promised
much of evangelical truth and purity, but furnished little worthy
of the title; q.d. “ As clouds carried about in the air, but devoid of
water, do not nourish the earth, so these boasters hurry about, pro-
mising much, but performing little, nay, infecting rather than irri-
gating the minds of the faithful.” ‘This, however, may be pushing
the comparison a little too far.

Δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ, “ trees as they are at the end of Autumn,
without leaves or fruit.” So most Commentators explain. But
these false teachers may be said to have had leaves, if they had not
fruit. I therefore prefer supposing trees as they are tqwards the
end of Autumn, with leaves, but without fruit, i,e. promising, but
not performing ; as in the case of the fig-tree, Mark 11, 13. Or we
may, with many Commentators, aideiiana trees whose early fruit
(or buds) withereth, and never cometh to perfection, like fruit with
a worm at the core. But this is denoted by the next word ἄκαρπα.
And ( would observe) there seems to be a climax in erga φθινο-
πωρινὰ, ἄκαρπα, δὶς ἀποθανόντα; ἐκριξώθεντα. The dis ἀπυθανόντα
is explained, by the best Commentators, “ doubly, i.e, altogether
dead.” But there seems an allusion to the preceding terms, which
denote only those barren; such only thus far living. See Benson,
Slade, and Mackn. In the ἐκριξωθέντα we have the upex of the
climax ; for of trees uprooted there can be no more hope of fruit.
The application is abvious, See Laurm,

13. κύματα ἄγριαι θαλάσσης, ἐπαφρίξοντα τὰς ἑαυτῶν
αἰσχύνας, “rough, wild, raging waves of the sea,
foaming out (only) their own shame.” The epithet
ἄγριος is applied to various objects, but rarely to ina-
nimate ones. The Commentators compare Sap. 14,
1., ἄγρια κύματα. The ἐπαφρίξβοντα is usually rendered
despumantes, foaming out (as if ἐξαφρ. 5, which occurs
in Aischy].{Agam. 1034., αἱματηρὸν ἐξαφρίξεσθαι μένος).
But it shoula rather be, foaming up, i. 6. on the
shore: for the ἄφρον is not only the foam of the sea,
but, as we find by the Schol. on Hom. Il. ο. 626., the
τὸ χορτώδες τῆς θαλάσσης, ἀπόβλημα, the wreck, or

806 - JUDE.

sea-weeds, &c., thrown up on the shore by the sea.
And this illustrates the αἰσχύνας just after. Tor, as
the wreck is the refuse of the sea, so were the foolish
and obscene discourses (for αἰσχυνὰς is rightly sup-
posed by Rosenm. to denote the αἰσχρολόγιαι, the
filthiness and foolish talking, mentioned by St. Paul)
which these persons spouted forth, their shame.
Here Laurm. (after Alberti) cites Mosch. Idyll. 5,5.
Ρ. 375., Edit. Valckn. : ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅταν ἀχήσῃ πολιὸς βυθὸς
ade θάλασσα ἸΚυρτὸν ἐπαφοίϑῃ (Br. ἐπαφρίσδη) τὰ δὲ
κύματα μακρὰ μιεμήνη. This I had myself noted, and
on which I would remark that there is, properly, a
lacuna between κύματα and μεμήνη. This, Valckn.
has supplied by μακρὰ : aconjecture eagerly caught
up by Wakef.; but, I conceive, injudiciously. I
would read κάρτα, which will (I think) meet with
the approbation of the learned.

13. ἀδτέρες πλανῆται, οἷς ὁ ϑύφος τοῦ σκότους εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα τετήρηται. Rosenm. supposes this expression
to be used in allusion to the ἀστέρες διαθέοντες, with
reference to the wandering unsettled habits of those
teachers, ever on the watch to gratify their appetites.
Τῇ 30, the Apostle had perhaps in view the words of
the Psalmist: ‘ They will run here and there for
meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied.” Now
stars was (as Grot. observes) the name by which,
among the Jews, teachers were designated. ‘The
πλαν. has no reference to the planets, but signifies
errones. Thus Plato (cited by Tiren.) calls mer-
chants (or rather pedlars) the planetas urbium. On
these wandering stars see Milton ap. Bens., and also
Carpz. and Hanlein.

The rest of the phraseology is the same with 2
Pet. 2, 17., where see the note.

It is observed by Laurm., that these verses(12 and
13.), in exquisite beauty of imagery, elegance of ex-
pression, and force of wholesome admonition rediquis
palmam faciunt dubiam. ‘The passage is well imitated
by Cowper, Task, p. 177., “ Lust in their hearts.”’

JUDE. 807

14—15. προεφήτευσε δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἔβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδὰμ,
Ἐνὼχ. ‘These verses Rosenm. takes to be parenthe-
tical; the comparison begun at ver. 12 and 13,
being continued at ver. 16.; and what is here said of
Enoch, being introduced in order to show how heavy
a judgment hung over the wicked. On Enoch, the
seventh in lineage from Adam, and the book of
Enoch (cited by some of the Fathers, and whose au-
thority is defended by others), this is no place to
treat ; nor indeed is it a matter of much conse-
quence, since (as Bp. Sherlock and others observe) it
can by no means be proved that this is a quotation
from that work; nor would it prove, in any case,
the inspiration of the book from which it was taken,
but only the truth of this particular passage, of
which the Apostle was well qualified to judge, though
it might be, as Slade thinks, a prophecy of Enoch’s
preserved by tradition. On Enoch see Laurm.,
from whom it appears that the great Dutch Divines,
Ens. Munting, Patzt, &c., have of late come over to
the opinion of the earlier Commentators (though
abandoned by most of the later ones), that Enoch
did not die, but really ascended to heavenalive; and
that therefore the case affords a good popular argu-
ment for the immortality of the soul, and the rewards
of virtue. And this opinion he himself embraces.
He moreover truly remarks, that the style of this
passage (so different from the terse phraseology of St.
Jude’s Epistle) bears strong marks of genuineness,
i. e. of the earliest antiquity, and seems to have been
faithfully followed by the Apostle, and translated,
literally, from Hebrew into Greek.

The προεφήτευσε is rendered by Rosenm. docuit.
But the word seems to have a middle signification
between prophesied, and foretold. Nor is ἦλθε for
the Future: but the Prophet uses the past tense, as
if the Lord were already come. It may be rendered,
is come. *Ey μυριάσιν ἁγίαις αὐτοῦ, “ with his holy
myriads,” i. e. with myriads of his holy ones, namely,
his angels, the hosts that are represented as accompa-

808 JUDE.

nying him. The ἐν is for σύν, [Ποιεῖν κρίσιν, to exer-_
cise Judgment, pass condemnation. ᾿Εξελέγχ. is a
stronger term than ἐλέγχειν, and signifies to utterly
convict, and consequently punish. See Schleus.
Lex. Ἔργα ἀσεβείας is for ἔργα ἀσεβῆ. Τῶν σκληρῶν,
“ harsh things,” i. 6. words. Laurm. observes, that
this alludes to the blasphemies mentioned supra, ver.
9&10. Itis strange no Commentators should have
compared Ps. 94, 4.

10. οὗτοί εἰσι---χάριν. Here is a resumption of
what was said at ver.12 & 13.; the οὗτοί being again
used in the same sense. By the γογγυσταὶ most un-
derstand revilers and censurers of their superiors.
But it seems rather to be a general term: for γογγύϑω
signifies to mutter, murmur, grumble, &c.; and thus
yoyyvor. will denote discontented, envious, malicious
persons, who, in their murmurs, spare neither man
nor God.

Μεμψίμοιροι is a modification of the former; and
the term is explained by Cicumen., 6 πάντα καὶ αἰεὶ
σκώπτειν ἐπιτηδεύων. Laurman thinks it equivalent.
to the μεμφόμενος τὸ ἀγαθὸν φιλεγκλήμων, fault-finder.
See the spirited sketch of such persons in Theophr.
Char. Eth. c.17. It denotes, then, those who see
every thing in the worst light, or (to use the words
of Seneca (cited by Pric. and most other Commen-
tators), omnia deplorantes, quibus nulla non causa
in querelas placet.

By the κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόμενοι are
usually supposed to be denoted those who live only
for their lusts. But it may, more suitably to the
preceding words, be rendered, men who care not for
the opinion of others, nay, little solicitous about the
favour of God, and following their own opinions
only, the προπετεῖς of 2 Tim. 3, 4.

In τὸ στόμα αὐτών λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα there is a He-
braism for λαλοῦσι ὑπέρογκα, scil. ῥήματα. “YrésoyKos
signifies of exceeding bulk. So Heysch. explains it
ὑπέρμετρος. See the note on 2 Pet. 2,18. I would
compare Auschyl. Theb. 438. ἐς οὐρανὸν Πέμπει----κυ-

JUDE.

βαίνοντ᾽ ἔπη. ‘ Now that there were (observes
senm.) among the Jews many persons. disconten
with their lot, and who, hurried away by a false hope
of the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, broke out
into vain complaints of the injustice of God, the his-
tories of the disturbances and seditions (which we
learn from Joseph. and Sueton. were commenced by
the Jews) plainly show us.”

The Apostle then adds another odious trait, θαυ-
μάᾶβοντες πρόσωπα, ὠφελείας χάριν" which Rosenm.
explains, “ paying adulatory court to personages,” or
great and influential persons. So θαυμάϑειν πρόσωπον
δυναστοῦ in Levit. 19, 15., and θαυμάϑειν for τιμᾷν In
Sir. 7, 29. In this sense, too, it often occurs in the
Classical writers, especially Thucyd. But as θαυμά-
Sev πρόσωπον, corresponding to 3.25 NW) very often
occurs in the Sept., and always in a forensic sense,
synonymous with λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον, or προσωποληπ-
rev, so 1 think with Loesner, that this is the sense
here (especially as Rosenm. gives no authority for
πρόσωπον, a personage, or dignified person ;) and that
this juridical term is meant to allude to the sitting
in judgment, and pronouncing on men’s characters,
which they arrogated to themselves. The πρόσωπα
may therefore (as Loesner says) denote all persons
from whom they could get any thing; which is de-
noted by the wPercias χάριν, with which I would com-
pare Thucyd. 1, 28. φίλους ποιεῖσθαι οὕς οὐ βούλονται,
ὠφελείας ἕνεκα. Now this ὠφελεία was, in the case of
judges, some present either of money, or valuable
goods; and, in the present case, much the same, or
what they could get.

17. The Epistle concludes, as usual, with exhor-
tation. Μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων----Χριστοῦ. The προει-
ρημένων denotes the words which had been delivered

* One might also compare the sesquipedalia verba of the Poet.
Bens. explains it of mystified terms and magnificent pompous
phrases which had no great meaning, if any at all, but served to
amuse unthinking people, and make them fancy they were let into
the mysteries of the Gospel and the deep things of God.

δι. JUDE.

to them by the Apostles before those false teachers
crept in. This, as Rosenm. observes, may include
both epistolary and viva voce instruction. See 2
Pet. 3, 2 and 3. It has been supposed that Jude was
not an Apostle: but (as Laurm. observes) this pas-
sage will not prove it, any more than (as Wolf ob-
serves) Hebr. 13, 7. will prove that St. Paul was not
a teacher.

18. ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, &c. The ὅτι is rendered by
Doddr. for; better by our Translators how; though
that is obsolete. I would render namely that. The
second ὅτι is suited to citation. ‘The passages of the
Old Testament adverted to are supposed by Knapp
to be Acts 20, 29 and 30. 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2 Tim, 3, 1
seq. 4, 3. 2 Thess. 2, 3—12. 2 Pet. 3, 2 and 3. It
is agreed by the best Commentators that the phrase
ἐν ἐσχάτῳ 15 here not to be rigorously interpreted,
but understood of future time generally. And Ro-
senm. observes, that the words, though predictions,
were not prophecies. The Apostles foresaw that,
after their departure, false teachers would creep in,
and by attractive doctrines draw many to follow
them.

By ἐμπαῖκται, as at 2 Pet. 3, 3., are denoted scof-
fers, men who made a jest of serious and vital reli-
gion, and especially of the doctrines of the advent of
Christ to judgment, and the resurrection of the dead.
Tay ἀσεβειῶν (which is not found in the parallel pas-
sage of Peter) has the force of the adjective ἀσεβεὶς :
and in both this passage and that I would, with
Laurm., take the whole phrase as at ver. 16., and
understand it of a self-willed, conceited spirit, that
which follows its own fancies and whims. So that
there is no occasion to adopt Bentley’s conjec-
ture ἀσελγειών. It was the common interpretation,
not the common reading, that wanted rectifying.
The epithet ἀσεβεὶς is surely applicable to such per-
sons, since such a spirit could not but lead them to
pervert the Gospel, and corrupt it by impure ad-

JUDE. 811

mixtures of their own notions: a highly presumptu-
ous and sinful conduct. 3

19. οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίξοντες ψυχικοὶ, πνεῦμα μὴ
ἔχοντες. Carpzov will have it that the hortatory
part of the Epistle only commences here: and most
Commentators regard this as a continuation of the
description of the heretics, interrupted by ver. 17 and
18. But it should rather seem that the Apostle,
having commenced the exhortation at ver. 17., flow
interprets it (hurried away by the indignation called
forth by the κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορεύομιενοι),
and levels at them another sentence of bitter cen-
sure, exclaiming οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ, &c. **(Aye,) these are
the very men who (even now) excite separations,”
Χο. ‘The best Critics are agreed that ἑαυτοὺς is not
genuine, but from the margin, and founded on a
two-fold view of the sense ; and that the term ἀποδιο-
ρίϑοντες (which, however, is admitted by Schleus. to
be ambiguous, ) signifies those who by false doctrines
(or, as Laurman explains, variety of opinions,) ex-
cited separations and schisms both of themselves and
others; and (as some add) by their corrupt lives
threw the society into confusion. But this is here
incongruous. ‘Tindal renders, “ those are makers
of sects.”

The last trait is ψυχικοὶ (εἰσι), πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
The ψυχικοὶ Laurm. well explains, homines qui, veluti
animalia bruta, unicé sensuum vi et impetu feruntur,
celsioris animi et rationis usu omnino destituti. See
Suic. Thes. c. 1589. and the note on 1 Cor. 2, 14.
Pric. and Laurman aptly compare Herm. Past. 2,
12. Hunc spiritum terrestrem habens, exaltat se, et
improbus est et verbosus, et in deliciis conversatur,
et in voluptatibus multis, et mercedem accipit. The
πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες is explained by Rosenm., nec vo-
luntatem, nec propositum, nec studium habent sen-
tiendi agendique convenienter dictamini divino:
destituti morali perfectione, ad quam Deus per auxili-
uM τοῦ πνεύματος (religionis) adducit. But this I must
regard as that kind of perversion which the word πνεῦ-

812 JUDE.

μα too often suffers at the hands of the recent foreign
Divines. Krebs and J. B. Carpz. rightly explain the
οἱ πνεῦμα ἔχοντες, the unregenerate, who only follow
the impulses of nature common to brutes, who expe-
rience not in themselves, or do not yield, to the
guidance of the Divine Spirit, nor have its gifts any .
fruit in their doctrine. See a passage of Clemen.
Alex. cited by Wets. on Eph. 2, 1.

QB. The Apostle now resumes his exhortations,
and bids them not only beware of the artifices of the
false teachers, but study to advance in religious
knowledge and practice; and to ensure the success
of their endeavours, he enjoins them to pray in the
Holy Spirit. (Laurman.)

On the force of the metaphor in ἐποικοδόμοῦντες see
the note on 1 Cor. 3, 10. seq. By πίστις is here meant
the Christian religion. And ἁγιωτάτῃ is a most ap-
propriate epithet, not so much as denoting the faith
once delivered to the saints (as Wets. and Laurman
explain), as that originality in the Holy Being, and
intended to make some men holy. So our Lord
says: “Be ye holy as 1 am holy.” Here, it may be
observed, the effects of the Gospel are contrasted
with those of the false teachers.

The words ἐν πνεύματι oyiw, are by some con-
nected with the preceding; by others (and more
rightly) with the following. The evis for διὰ, per. by
the aid of, under the direction of. Laurm. observes,
that the best commentary on this may be derived
from Rom. 8, 26. τὸ yap τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ, οὐκ
οἴδαμιεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς
ἀλαλήτοις" where see the note.

Q1. ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπη Θεοῦ τηρήσατε. ‘The ἑαυτοὺς
is by most Commentators rendered yourselves: but
by others, as Ers., Pisc., Est., Bens., and Laurm.,
each other ; which is more significant and agreeable
to the context, ver. 20—23. And that ἑαυτοὺς often
has this signification, is certain. But both may be
united, thus: ‘Strive to preserve yourselves and
each other in the love of God,” or rather, “in love

JUDE. 818

to God;” for this, Bens. and Carpz. prove, is required
by the context ; though the term sometimes signifies
the love God bears us.

ΠΡροσδεχόμιενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Κυρίου, “ expecting and
trusting (thereby) to obtain mercy and acceptance
with God.” The εἰς ϑωὴν αἰώνιον, is exegetical of the
preceding, and denotes the end to which this tends,
even eternal salvation.

22, 23. To the right understanding of these verses
it is necessary to attend to the sense of ἐαυτοὺς ἐν
ἀγάπη Θεοῦ τηρήσατε before laid down; and we may
paraphrase thus: ‘‘(And in the exercise of this vi-
gilant exertion to keep each in the love of God, re-
member that ye are not to abandon all those who
seem to wander from the true faith, no,) some treat
compassionately and mildly, making a distinction
(between those and the desperately perverse) ;
others (even if the danger seem great, and the
chance of saving them small) yet anxiously strive to
save; snatching them, as it were, out of the fire.”
Such, I conceive, is the true sense of these obscure
verses, on which Commentators differ in opinion.
And this view is supported by the authority of the
best interpreters. As to the various readings, they
seem to be no more than irregular methods of re-
moving the difficulty by re-writing the passage.

᾿Ελεεῖν here denotes (as often) to treat kindly.
Διακρινόμιενοι is used as a deponent for διακρίνοντες,
and involves the common ellipsis μεταξὺ αὐτῶν καὶ
τῶν ἄλλων. I suspect that the Apostle did not ex-
clude even the false teachers themselves, but intended
that some exertions should be made to save even
some of them. And as the ods μεν ἐλεεῖτε may re-
spect the people seduced; so may the ods δὲ denote
some of the deceivers, and to them the words ἐν φόβῳ
σωξβεῖτε are very suitable. Now the sense of these
words is (I conceive), not “terrify with denuncia-
tions of Divine vengeance,” as Grot., Pisc., Est.,
Bens., and almost all Commentators explain, but,
with anxiety,’ which implies circumspection and

814 JUDE.

exertion. So Phil. 2, 12. pera φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν
ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν karepyagere and 1 Pet. 1,17. ἐν φόβῳ,
‘cautiously and providently.” In short, it imports
an anxious and diligent use of al/ the methods of re-
formation, not only by arguments derived from fear,
but love. |

Ἔκ τοῦ πυρὸς is a proverbial expression, in fre-
quent use among the Jews, and occurring also in the
Classical writers; as Liban. Orat. 712 B. πόλλους ἴσως
δυνήσεται τοῦ πυρὸς ἐξέλεσθαι.

The concluding words μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τὴς
σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα, have much perplexed the
Commentators, who, the greatest part of them,
strangely wander. See Pole. The most successful
have been Wolf and Bens., the former of whom
thinks they contain an earnest injunction to abstain
from every appearance of evil: and he compares
1 Cor 6, 20. But the words are so closely connected
with the preceding that I cannot but think the mean-
ing is: ‘* Let, however, your endeavours to reform
them be made with great caution; be careful to
avoid being yourselves corrupted by their society,
and show a hatred of whatever partakes, in the
slightest degree, of vice and sin.” This, which I
conceive to be the true sense, Bens. alone seems to
have discerned. On the origin of the phrase μισεῖν
ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα, no certainty can be attained. It
was probably a proverbial one.

24, 25. Now follows the epilogus, or solemn doxo-
logy with which the Apostles usually conclude their
Epistles ; and this is one not inferior to any in the
New Testament. The sense is too plain to require
much illustration. Απταιστος Valck. explains ἄπροσ-
koros, qui pectus purum et firmum gestitat. I pre-
fer ἄπτωτους. As to the reading ἀσπίλους, it is a
gloss. Vorst. here recognizes an agonistical meta-
phor. The στῆσαι is well explained, by Laurm.,
stare facere, i.e. sistere. Now στῆσαι ἀμώμους an-
swers to φυλάξαι ἀπταίστους. ἈΚατενώπιον τῆς δόξης
αὐτοῦ, “in the presence of the glorious God.” Ἐν

JUDE. 815

ἀγαλλιάσει, ‘ with exultation and holy confidence.”
Compare 1 Joh. 4,12. Μόνῳ coda Θεῷ. The σοφῴ
is not found in many MSS., ‘Versions, ‘and Fathers ;
and it is rightly (1 think) rejected by almost ail
Critics; not but that the epithet is very suitable,

though it is not hujus loci. ‘The name σωτὴρ is often
applied to God the Father, as the original author of
our salvation. So in 1 Tim. 2, 3. “and. Tit. BS.

3,4. The words διὰ Ἰησοῦ Miieroo τοῦ Κυρίου ΤῊΝ
added in some MSS., seem derived from the margin.
Δόξα, scil. ἔστω, be ascribed. Μεγαλωσύνη, majesty.

Κράτος, ty, dominion. There i is a par allelism between
δόξα καὶ μεγαλωσύνη and κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία. Compare
a similar doxology in Apoc. 5,13. Before καὶ νῦν
-Griesb. inserts, from a few MSS. and two Latin
Fathers, πρὸ πάντος τοῦ αἰῶνος. But it is far easier to
account for the insertion of such a clause in those
few MSS., than for its omission in all the rest, all the
antient versions, &c. I suspect, therefore, that it is
derived from the margin, and it may be dispensed
with, since νῦν will very well include all the time up
to the present instant ; whence it is sometimes used
of pasttime. (See Steph. Thes., Viger., and Hoogev.)
From the Vulgate, and the early Latin liturgies,
came the doxology used in our Church, “ As it was
in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world
without end, Amen.” With this Grot. aptly com-
pares the well known Virgilian line, Semper honos
nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt.

FINIS, σὺν Θεώ,

J.B. Nichols, 25, Parliament-street,

εὐ te i οὐκ.

ee en ae eee ere
πὰ ial al 4 ‘ig Fh

Lr.

b>
"

*
*

BS2341 .B657 v.8
= a annotationis sacrae

wi VA

1 wre 00055 0162

ἘΝῚ ᾿
oe ᾿ Ἦν, τὴ

ue

7

& ols eer tey

ee ee ee
Ser vane
Der erage te
ἡ δε PAG ge ahem Oe ἄρας; ὅν ote κα
ween tes

Perea nt

SF ste Rabdi eRe,

Seryynre,
MOR 6 fo age)

᾿ τὴ kone
ΠΟΎΣ J ᾿ ΟΝ
CCE ἀνα eee ra
. hy SET ALOR.
ARAM SE
tates ΟΥΤΩΣ
#2 yhetents,
reer oe pagrus
Fei ETS Sever
ΗΝ
PMN ER λον He
OP FRE PAG, Meare

αν std cer Ay
DESNQE ANWR tos Se AS κεν kn δ μον
Ὁ) Negeathy e UP ab SAAB ITEC bat obit om manger ἐδ 975. α
ΕΝ Vlg ND ἀγα
Vt as ἀκ ΣΑΣ Te
es ἢ)
BMA NATAL ag
ΝΣ t Noe hehe oy
SEER δα EEE ALE re mat : RUT bed he
᾿ eeu es ba u bey
ἢ ΓΚ ]Π Ὁ

igs
Ure dete an
yw

ae
ee Wes

aa
co Nath SHAD
NON
ny
ANEsds
Bae pneny
ties

ΤΟΥΤῚ

ΝΥΝ

βονιν φῦ

Bd ee ae Herat

Je Fin (mrss Magers estes wee

ters tar arate Cw dirteewe Phe
sediaget: ὁ δὲν τ τ an ien taken mcory

TADS ea TAA,
feaeereys ὦ

ΠΟΥ
*2 re ΤΩΣ
oe helt a8 Sete
ere pereetrriaty
rycen iran

anes
wets ace yeaa tnd

me tinlantnrsss ans αν

rant RE Rak ay

oer errs. hes
Bint eth wet ve ueah swat
Pores
privates: te
ΝΣ
“ : ΆΚΝ ΨΥ
τὸν Ewe wale, :
Sher Wee anes τ οὐ eit 8 ahs
re AE nut jes
PDair ee,